Lamarre v. Bigras

Lamarre v. Bigras

The trustee could have brought the action paulienne alone, but the Superior Court could not annul the sale because a contracting party (the husband authorizing his wife) was not before the Court and the vendors were not made defendants or mises-en-cause; the wife's unauthorised participation compounded the procedural defect and prevented annulment.

Citation
[1945] SCR 82
Parties
Appellant; Trustee in Bankruptcy and Plaintiff: Albert Lamarre; Co Plaintiff; Universal Legatee: Albina Sénécal; Co Plaintiff; Universal Legatee and Married Woman Separated as to Property: Gertrude Meehan; Respondent; Defendant: Albert Bigras
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 December 1944
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy and Insolvency; Action Paulienne / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of King's Bench (quebec); Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of Court of King's Bench affirmed (Superior Court judgment reversed)
Legal Topics
Action Paulienne, Marital Authorization to Sue, Nullity of Contract, Joinder of Parties, Annulment of Sale
Source Language
English
Bankruptcy and Insolvency Civil Procedure Property Law Family Law Action Paulienne Marital Authorization to Sue Nullity of Contract Joinder of Parties +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Albert Lamarre

Appellant; Trustee in Bankruptcy and Plaintiff

Albina Sénécal

Co Plaintiff; Universal Legatee

Gertrude Meehan

Co Plaintiff; Universal Legatee and Married Woman Separated as to Property

Albert Bigras

Respondent; Defendant

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy and Insolvency; Action Paulienne / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of King's Bench (quebec); Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trustee (syndic) representing creditors can bring an action paulienne alone
  2. 2 Whether a married woman separated as to property required her husband's authorization to appear as plaintiff
  3. 3 Whether the absence of a contracting party (husband) from the proceedings prevents annulment of the sale

Ratio Decidendi

The trustee could have brought the action paulienne alone, but the Superior Court could not annul the sale because a contracting party (the husband authorizing his wife) was not before the Court and the vendors were not made defendants or mises-en-cause; the wife's unauthorised participation compounded the procedural defect and prevented annulment.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of Court of King's Bench affirmed (Superior Court judgment reversed)

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Judgment of the Court of King's Bench, Q.R. [1943] K.B. 691, affirmed; Superior Court judgment setting aside sale reversed.