Meloche v. Déguire

Meloche v. Déguire

Majority held the deed was champertous—a bargain to share the subject matter of litigation as consideration for financing the suit—therefore void as against public policy; consequently specific performance could not be ordered and the respondents' action was dismissed; English law on champerty applies in Quebec via the Quebec Act 1774; the retrait pleas were unavailable to appellants in the manner pleaded and the partition demand was procedurally permissible but unenforceable given the nullity.

Citation
(1903) 34 SCR 24
Parties
Appellants/defendants: Feroel A. Meloche et al.; Respondents/plaintiffs: Theophile Deguire et al.; Mis En Cause: Alexandre Robert et ux.
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 October 1903
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (contract/property) / Final Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada
Outcome
Appeal allowed; respondents' action dismissed
Legal Topics
Champerty, Maintenance, Specific Performance, Partition (action En Partage), Retrait Successoral, Retrait De Droits Litigieux, Quebec Act 1774, Public Policy of Courts
Source Language
English
Contract Property Succession Civil Procedure Criminal Law Champerty Maintenance Specific Performance +5 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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Feroel A. Meloche et al.

Appellants/defendants

Theophile Deguire et al.

Respondents/plaintiffs

Alexandre Robert et ux.

Mis En Cause

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (contract/property) / Final Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the notarial agreement transferring fractional shares in litigation proceeds was champertous and therefore void
  2. 2 Whether the demande au pétitoire could be joined with an action en partage
  3. 3 Whether droit de retrait successoral or retrait de droits litigieux could be invoked by the appellants

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held the deed was champertous—a bargain to share the subject matter of litigation as consideration for financing the suit—therefore void as against public policy; consequently specific performance could not be ordered and the respondents' action was dismissed; English law on champerty applies in Quebec via the Quebec Act 1774; the retrait pleas were unavailable to appellants in the manner pleaded and the partition demand was procedurally permissible but unenforceable given the nullity.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; respondents' action dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Judgment of Court of King's Bench restored