Dominion Creosoting Co. v. Nickson Co

Dominion Creosoting Co. v. Nickson Co

By majority the Court held that the assignments, though absolute in form, were in substance equitable assignments operating as mortgages or charges within the meaning of s.102 R.S.B.C. 1911 because they were intended as security for the appellant’s debt; being unregistered as required by the statute they were void against the liquidator and the appellant’s appeal was dismissed.

Citation
(1917) 55 SCR 303
Parties
Appellant (defendant): Dominion Creosoting Company; Respondent (plaintiff): T. R. Nickson Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 February 1917
Procedural Posture
Company Law / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for British Columbia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; majority held assignments were mortgages or charges requiring registration and thus void against the liquidator
Legal Topics
Assignment of Debt, Mortgage or Charge, Registration of Security, Retention Monies, Liquidation
Source Language
English
Commercial Law Company Law Property Law Insolvency Law Assignment of Debt Mortgage or Charge Registration of Security Retention Monies +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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dominion Creosoting Company

Appellant (defendant)

T. R. Nickson Company

Respondent (plaintiff)

Procedural Posture

Company Law / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for British Columbia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether absolute-form assignments of municipal retention moneys were in substance mortgages or charges within s.102 R.S.B.C. 1911
  2. 2 Whether unregistered mortgages or charges are void against the liquidator under s.102
  3. 3 Whether contingent or future retention moneys could be assigned and, if so, when such assignments become effective

Ratio Decidendi

By majority the Court held that the assignments, though absolute in form, were in substance equitable assignments operating as mortgages or charges within the meaning of s.102 R.S.B.C. 1911 because they were intended as security for the appellant’s debt; being unregistered as required by the statute they were void against the liquidator and the appellant’s appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; majority held assignments were mortgages or charges requiring registration and thus void against the liquidator

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs