St. Mary's Parish Credit Union Ltd. v. T.M. Ball Lumber Co. Ltd.

St. Mary's Parish Credit Union Ltd. v. T.M. Ball Lumber Co. Ltd.

The Court held the appellant's equitable mortgage had priority because the respondent's mortgage expressly charged only the mortgagor's remaining equity and a caveat could not enlarge that limited interest; merger was not established or intended and, in any event, would not increase the interest granted to the respondent; appellant's priority is limited to the amount of its charge at the time the respondent took its mortgage ($6,400) plus contractual interest.

Citation
[1961] SCR 310
Parties
Defendant/appellant: St. Mary's Parish Credit Union Ltd.; Plaintiff/respondent: T. M. Ball Lumber Company Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 March 1961
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan
Outcome
Appeal allowed; trial judgment set aside; appellant declared to have priority
Legal Topics
Equitable Mortgages, Caveat, Priority Between Competing Interests, Merger of Securities
Source Language
English
Property Law Land Titles Equity Mortgages Equitable Mortgages Caveat Priority Between Competing Interests Merger of Securities

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

St. Mary's Parish Credit Union Ltd.

Defendant/appellant

T. M. Ball Lumber Company Limited

Plaintiff/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellant's earlier equitable mortgage had priority over respondent's later equitable mortgage and caveat
  2. 2 Whether registration of a caveat under The Land Titles Act can enlarge the scope of the interest claimed beyond the terms of the underlying instrument
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's equitable mortgage merged into the subsequently taken registered mortgage and the effect of any merger

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held the appellant's equitable mortgage had priority because the respondent's mortgage expressly charged only the mortgagor's remaining equity and a caveat could not enlarge that limited interest; merger was not established or intended and, in any event, would not increase the interest granted to the respondent; appellant's priority is limited to the amount of its charge at the time the respondent took its mortgage ($6,400) plus contractual interest.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; trial judgment set aside; appellant declared to have priority

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Trial judgment set aside