Hesseltine v. Nelles

Hesseltine v. Nelles

Majority: The only judgment from which an appeal properly lay was the judgment affirming the Chancellor's final judgment on further directions; the Chancellor, the Court of Appeal and consequently this Court were not empowered on that appeal to review earlier interlocutory decisions (the trial judgment determining liability or the Chief Justice’s variation of the Master's report), so the appeal is limited and must be dismissed with costs.

Citation
(1912) 47 SCR 230
Parties
Appellants (defendants): Philip Hesseltine and Others; Respondents (plaintiffs): A.J. Nelles and William Newman
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 December 1912
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (breach of Contract) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario; Final Judgment on Further Directions
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Appealability of Interlocutory Orders, Final Judgment, Master's Report, Further Directions, Res Judicata, Scope of Supreme Court Act
Source Language
English
Civil Contract Procedure Appellate Jurisdiction Appealability of Interlocutory Orders Final Judgment Master's Report Further Directions +2 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 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Philip Hesseltine and Others

Appellants (defendants)

A.J. Nelles and William Newman

Respondents (plaintiffs)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (breach of Contract) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario; Final Judgment on Further Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court can review interlocutory judgments (trial judgment and Chief Justice's variation of Master's report) on an appeal from a final judgment on further directions
  2. 2 Whether an appeal lies from earlier interlocutory decisions when the appeal is formally from a later final judgment on further directions
  3. 3 What the scope of section 51 of the Supreme Court Act requires about giving the judgment the Court of Appeal should have given

Ratio Decidendi

Majority: The only judgment from which an appeal properly lay was the judgment affirming the Chancellor's final judgment on further directions; the Chancellor, the Court of Appeal and consequently this Court were not empowered on that appeal to review earlier interlocutory decisions (the trial judgment determining liability or the Chief Justice’s variation of the Master's report), so the appeal is limited and must be dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.