Standard Bank of Canada v. McCrossan

Standard Bank of Canada v. McCrossan

The Supreme Court was equally divided; the appeal was dismissed without costs, effectively leaving the trial judge's factual finding that an oral condition precedent existed intact in this case. Three judges accepted the trial judge's finding that the oral condition was a condition precedent barring liability and admissible by parol; three judges concluded the oral statement was not a condition precedent and could not be proved by parol. Because the Court was equally divided, no definitive majority legal principle altering parol-evidence law was established beyond affirming the factual outcome below.

Citation
(1920) 60 SCR 655
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Standard Bank of Canada; Respondent/defendant: McCrossan
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 November 1920
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Concerning Guarantee on Bills of Exchange / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia; Judgment Reserved and Later Dismissed (court Equally Divided)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed without costs; judgment of trial court and Court of Appeal affirmed by operation of an equally divided Supreme Court.
Legal Topics
Condition Precedent Vs Condition Subsequent, Parol Evidence Rule, Liability of Guarantor
Source Language
English
Bills of Exchange Guarantee Contract Evidence Condition Precedent Vs Condition Subsequent Parol Evidence Rule Liability of Guarantor

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Standard Bank of Canada

Appellant/plaintiff

McCrossan

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Concerning Guarantee on Bills of Exchange / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia; Judgment Reserved and Later Dismissed (court Equally Divided)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an oral condition existed that made the guarantee effective only if certain notes were paid out of advancing funds
  2. 2 Whether that oral condition was a condition precedent (admissible by parol) or a term/condition subsequent (not admissible by parol)
  3. 3 Whether respondent was liable on the guarantee in light of the alleged oral condition

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court was equally divided; the appeal was dismissed without costs, effectively leaving the trial judge's factual finding that an oral condition precedent existed intact in this case. Three judges accepted the trial judge's finding that the oral condition was a condition precedent barring liability and admissible by parol; three judges concluded the oral statement was not a condition precedent and could not be proved by parol. Because the Court was equally divided, no definitive majority legal principle altering parol-evidence law was established beyond affirming the factual outcome below.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed without costs; judgment of trial court and Court of Appeal affirmed by operation of an equally divided Supreme Court.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed without costs.