Buck v. Knowlton

Buck v. Knowlton

Because Knowlton was never authorized to forward the brokers' original application (he declined to forward it and sent a different application) and the policy sent by the insurer was not one the plaintiffs had assented to, the defendant owed no duty to the plaintiffs and the policy remained company property (an escrow); accordingly plaintiffs could not recover for negligence or conversion.

Citation
(1892) 21 SCR 371
Parties
Appellant (plaintiff): DeMill Buck; Appellant (plaintiff): Frank M. Buck; Respondent (defendant): William G. Knowlton
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 October 1892
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (contract) / Final Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of Supreme Court of New Brunswick affirmed (rule absolute for non-suit in default of plaintiffs complying with terms of new trial affirmed).
Legal Topics
Application for Insurance, Escrow, Authority of Agent and Sub Agent, Conversion (trover), Negligence and Privity
Source Language
English
Contract Insurance Law Agency Law Property Law Tort (conversion/negligence) Application for Insurance Escrow Authority of Agent and Sub Agent +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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DeMill Buck

Appellant (plaintiff)

Frank M. Buck

Appellant (plaintiff)

William G. Knowlton

Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (contract) / Final Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendant was authorized to forward the application or effect insurance on plaintiffs' behalf
  2. 2 Whether defendant owed plaintiffs a duty of care or was liable in negligence for failing to forward the authorized application
  3. 3 Whether the policy sent by the insurer became the plaintiffs' property or remained company property (escrow)

Ratio Decidendi

Because Knowlton was never authorized to forward the brokers' original application (he declined to forward it and sent a different application) and the policy sent by the insurer was not one the plaintiffs had assented to, the defendant owed no duty to the plaintiffs and the policy remained company property (an escrow); accordingly plaintiffs could not recover for negligence or conversion.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of Supreme Court of New Brunswick affirmed (rule absolute for non-suit in default of plaintiffs complying with terms of new trial affirmed).

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Rule absolute for non-suit in default of plaintiffs complying with terms upon which a new trial was granted