Vaughan v. Richardson

Vaughan v. Richardson

The guarantee given by Henry Vaughan was enforceable: the plaintiffs granted the requested delay which constituted valid consideration for the guarantee; the defendant could not succeed on a fraud plea because only innocent misrepresentation (if any) was proved and it was not pleaded; moreover the evidence showed the defendant knew the smaller bill was for freight, so even if misrepresentation were allowed it was not proved; therefore the verdict for the plaintiffs was properly upheld and the appeal dismissed with costs.

Citation
(1892) 21 SCR 359
Parties
Appellants (defendants): Hannah Vaughan and Clarence Aubrey Vaughan, Executrix and Executor of Henry Vaughan, Deceased; Respondents (plaintiffs): Edward C. Richardson and James M. Barnard, Junior
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 October 1892
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (ships and Shipping) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Supreme Court of New Brunswick; Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; verdict for plaintiffs affirmed
Legal Topics
Disbursements, Freight, Bill of Exchange, Guarantee, Misrepresentation, Consideration, Striking Out Pleas, New Trial
Source Language
English
Shipping Contract Negotiable Instruments Suretyship Agency Pleading Disbursements Freight +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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hannah Vaughan and Clarence Aubrey Vaughan, Executrix and Executor of Henry Vaughan, Deceased

Appellants (defendants)

Edward C. Richardson and James M. Barnard, Junior

Respondents (plaintiffs)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (ships and Shipping) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Supreme Court of New Brunswick; Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an innocent misrepresentation by the creditor's agent can be relied on as a plea of fraud by a surety not having pleaded innocent misrepresentation
  2. 2 Whether there was consideration for the guarantee (whether delay granted constituted sufficient consideration)
  3. 3 Whether the guarantee was enforceable against the defendant as given

Ratio Decidendi

The guarantee given by Henry Vaughan was enforceable: the plaintiffs granted the requested delay which constituted valid consideration for the guarantee; the defendant could not succeed on a fraud plea because only innocent misrepresentation (if any) was proved and it was not pleaded; moreover the evidence showed the defendant knew the smaller bill was for freight, so even if misrepresentation were allowed it was not proved; therefore the verdict for the plaintiffs was properly upheld and the appeal dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; verdict for plaintiffs affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Verdict for the plaintiffs in the court below affirmed