The Queen v. Ogilvie

The Queen v. Ogilvie

Majority: The accountant's imputation was within his apparent authority and was for the bank's benefit so the bank is bound; the Crown's immediate acts (returning deposit receipts and accepting substituted receipts/credits) constituted a valid appropriation by the creditor under art. 1160; consequently the two $50,000 payments were applied to the first loan(s) and the guarantor remains liable for the balance, subject to deduction of the ratable dividends received; interest at 5% allowed and costs to Crown.

Citation
(1899) 29 SCR 299
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Her Majesty The Queen; Respondent/defendant: The Honourable A. W. Ogilvie
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 February 1899
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (contract/guarantee) From Exchequer Court / On Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Exchequer Court judgment reversed; judgment entered for the Crown subject to deduction of ratable dividends
Legal Topics
Appropriation of Payments, Imputation of Payments, Error/mistake in Appropriation, Agent Authority and Apparent Authority, Deposit Receipts and Special Deposits, Application of Civil Code Arts. 1160 1161
Source Language
English
Contract Suretyship Banking Law Civil Procedure Conflict of Laws Appropriation of Payments Imputation of Payments Error/mistake in Appropriation +3 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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty The Queen

Appellant/plaintiff

The Honourable A. W. Ogilvie

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (contract/guarantee) From Exchequer Court / On Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an accountant's imputation of payments binds the bank when done within apparent authority and for the bank's benefit
  2. 2 Whether an asserted error or lack of authority in the debtor's imputation can be invoked against the creditor under Civil Code art. 1160
  3. 3 Whether the creditor's act of returning specific deposit receipts constituted an appropriation by the creditor

Ratio Decidendi

Majority: The accountant's imputation was within his apparent authority and was for the bank's benefit so the bank is bound; the Crown's immediate acts (returning deposit receipts and accepting substituted receipts/credits) constituted a valid appropriation by the creditor under art. 1160; consequently the two $50,000 payments were applied to the first loan(s) and the guarantor remains liable for the balance, subject to deduction of the ratable dividends received; interest at 5% allowed and costs to Crown.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Exchequer Court judgment reversed; judgment entered for the Crown subject to deduction of ratable dividends

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs here and below
  • Judgment for the Crown for amount of the deposit with interest at 5% per annum, less the ratable portion of dividends received by the Crown in the bank's liquidation