Farwell v. Jameson

Farwell v. Jameson

The appellants were not in occupation 'under' the assignees because the assignees neither authorized nor adopted their agent's unauthorized act; estoppel binding the appellants to the assignee would not benefit a third-party landlord who is not in privity; hence the goods were not liable to distress under s.28 and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
(1896) 26 SCR 588
Parties
Appellants/plaintiffs: Farwell & Glendon; Respondent/defendant: Philip Jameson
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 December 1896
Procedural Posture
Appeal Concerning Landlord and Tenant/distrain for Rent / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment for respondent vacated; judgment entered for appellants for agreed damages
Legal Topics
Distress for Rent, Subtenancy and Occupation, Estoppel, Construction of Statute R.s.o. 1887 C.143 S.28
Source Language
english
Property Law Landlord and Tenant Law Statutory Interpretation Distress for Rent Subtenancy and Occupation Estoppel Construction of Statute R.s.o. 1887 C.143 S.28

Source-derived case record

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Farwell & Glendon

Appellants/plaintiffs

Philip Jameson

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal Concerning Landlord and Tenant/distrain for Rent / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether goods of persons put into possession by an agent of an assignee are liable to distress under R.S.O. 1887 c.143 s.28
  2. 2 Whether persons who entered by an agent without authority are in occupation 'under' the assignee within s.28
  3. 3 Whether an estoppel against the trespasser in favour of the assignee can be asserted by the head landlord to justify distress

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants were not in occupation 'under' the assignees because the assignees neither authorized nor adopted their agent's unauthorized act; estoppel binding the appellants to the assignee would not benefit a third-party landlord who is not in privity; hence the goods were not liable to distress under s.28 and the seizure was wrongful.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment for respondent vacated; judgment entered for appellants for agreed damages

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Judgment for the appellants for $550