Margolius v. Diesbourg

Margolius v. Diesbourg

The appeal was dismissed because the remedy sought was an action at law on a contract under seal executed between the appellant and Kellner; the respondent Diesbourg was not a party to that sealed instrument and therefore cannot be sued at law on it; equitable exceptions and other bases (agency exceeding authority, ratification, novation, receipt of benefit) did not sustain the appellant's claim.

Citation
[1937] SCR 183
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: George Margolius; Respondent/defendant: Arthur Diesbourg; Co Defendant/defendant: Edward H. Kellner
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 February 1937
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (contract) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada; Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed, without costs.
Legal Topics
Contracts Under Seal (deeds), Privity of Contract, Undisclosed Principal, Illegality of Contract Under Statute, Ratification and Novation, Equitable Enforcement (trust/beneficiary)
Source Language
English
Contract Agency Equity Statutory Interpretation Contracts Under Seal (deeds) Privity of Contract Undisclosed Principal Illegality of Contract Under Statute +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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Margolius

Appellant/plaintiff

Arthur Diesbourg

Respondent/defendant

Edward H. Kellner

Co Defendant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (contract) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada; Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an action at law can be maintained against a non-party to a contract under seal
  2. 2 Whether undisclosed principal or agent can be sued on a sealed contract
  3. 3 Whether contract was illegal under Ontario Liquor Control Act and Export Act and thus unenforceable

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the remedy sought was an action at law on a contract under seal executed between the appellant and Kellner; the respondent Diesbourg was not a party to that sealed instrument and therefore cannot be sued at law on it; equitable exceptions and other bases (agency exceeding authority, ratification, novation, receipt of benefit) did not sustain the appellant's claim.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed, without costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed without costs