MacEwan v. Toronto General Trusts Corporation

MacEwan v. Toronto General Trusts Corporation

The settlement of the prior action constituted valid consideration for Carter's collateral promise; Carter's promise was not a promise to answer for the debt of another requiring written memorandum under the Statute of Frauds; the solicitor's testimony was sufficiently corroborated by the defendants' solicitor and was admissible; the original salt-control agreement was not shown on the evidence to be an undue restraint of trade under Criminal Code s.498 and therefore did not vitiate the collateral promise; the administrator had standing to sue. Consequently the trial judge's judgment in favour of the plaintiffs was restored and the appeal was allowed.

Citation
(1917) 54 SCR 381
Parties
Plaintiff Appellant: Hugh J.A. MacEwan, Administrator of the Estate of Peter MacEwan, Deceased; Defendant Respondent: The Toronto General Trusts Corporation, Executors of J.J. Carter, Deceased
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 February 1917
Procedural Posture
Contract / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs; judgment of the trial judge (Sutherland J.) restored.
Legal Topics
Consideration, Settlement of Action, Restraint of Trade, Statute of Frauds, Corroboration of Witness, Administrator Standing
Source Language
English
Contract Criminal Law Commercial Law Civil Procedure Consideration Settlement of Action Restraint of Trade Statute of Frauds +2 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hugh J.A. MacEwan, Administrator of the Estate of Peter MacEwan, Deceased

Plaintiff Appellant

The Toronto General Trusts Corporation, Executors of J.J. Carter, Deceased

Defendant Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contract / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether settlement of a prior action constituted valid consideration for a collateral promise by Carter
  2. 2 Whether Carter's promise was a promise to answer for the debt of another within the Statute of Frauds requiring writing
  3. 3 Whether corroboration of the solicitor's evidence was required under R.S.O. c.76 s.12 and whether it was furnished

Ratio Decidendi

The settlement of the prior action constituted valid consideration for Carter's collateral promise; Carter's promise was not a promise to answer for the debt of another requiring written memorandum under the Statute of Frauds; the solicitor's testimony was sufficiently corroborated by the defendants' solicitor and was admissible; the original salt-control agreement was not shown on the evidence to be an undue restraint of trade under Criminal Code s.498 and therefore did not vitiate the collateral promise; the administrator had standing to sue. Consequently the trial judge's judgment in favour of the plaintiffs was restored and the appeal was allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs; judgment of the trial judge (Sutherland J.) restored.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs in this Court and in the Appellate Division
  • Judgment of the trial judge restored