McNeil v. Fultz

McNeil v. Fultz

Defendant had no authority to deduct the bonus from the plaintiffs' securities; as trustee/agent he was bound to account and cannot appropriate trust property for promoters' flotation expenses without consent; plaintiffs were entitled to recover the value of the securities withheld; laches defence failed on the evidence.

Citation
(1906) 38 SCR 198
Parties
Defendant Appellant: Alexander McNeil; Plaintiff Respondent: William S. Fultz; Plaintiff Respondent: Patrick E. Corbett
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 December 1906
Procedural Posture
Appeal — Civil (contract and Trust) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada; Final Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia affirmed
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Breach of Trust, Assessment of Damages, Indemnity for Expenses, Salvage, Laches, Estoppel, Delivery of Securities, Promotion of Company
Source Language
English
Contract Trusts Agency Equity Company Law Breach of Contract Breach of Trust Assessment of Damages +6 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alexander McNeil

Defendant Appellant

William S. Fultz

Plaintiff Respondent

Patrick E. Corbett

Plaintiff Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal — Civil (contract and Trust) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada; Final Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendant could deduct a proportionate bonus from plaintiffs' allotted securities without their consent
  2. 2 Whether deductions could be justified as salvage or indemnity for preservation expenses
  3. 3 Measure of damages for wrongful withholding by trustee versus breach of contract

Ratio Decidendi

Defendant had no authority to deduct the bonus from the plaintiffs' securities; as trustee/agent he was bound to account and cannot appropriate trust property for promoters' flotation expenses without consent; plaintiffs were entitled to recover the value of the securities withheld; laches defence failed on the evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment for the plaintiffs in the sum of $1,350 with interest from April 1, 1903, and costs