Flatt v. Ferland

Flatt v. Ferland

Because the appellants' claim was for $1,880 (below the $2,000 statutory threshold) and they did not represent Ferland's creditors, the amount in controversy was insufficient under R.S.C. ch. 135 s. 29 to render the case appealable; the appeal was therefore quashed with costs.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
(1892) 21 SCR 32
Parties
Appellants (creditors): John Ira Flatt et al; Respondents (vendor/purchaser): F. F. Ferland et al (including Gauthier)
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 June 1892
Procedural Posture
Action to Set Aside Fraudulent Conveyance (creditors' Suit) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada; Appeal Quashed
Outcome
Appeal quashed
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Conveyance, Reméré (right of Reversion), Amount in Controversy, Representative Capacity of Creditors, R.s.c. Ch. 135 S. 29
Source Language
english
Property Law Equity Civil Procedure Appeal Jurisdiction Fraudulent Conveyance Reméré (right of Reversion) Amount in Controversy Representative Capacity of Creditors +1 more

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Ira Flatt et al

Appellants (creditors)

F. F. Ferland et al (including Gauthier)

Respondents (vendor/purchaser)

Procedural Posture

Action to Set Aside Fraudulent Conveyance (creditors' Suit) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada; Appeal Quashed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the amount in controversy met the statutory threshold for appeal under R.S.C. ch.135 s.29
  2. 2 Whether the appellants acted as representatives of the debtor's creditors for jurisdictional purposes
  3. 3 Whether the conveyance was made in fraud of creditors

Ratio Decidendi

Because the appellants' claim was for $1,880 (below the $2,000 statutory threshold) and they did not represent Ferland's creditors, the amount in controversy was insufficient under R.S.C. ch. 135 s. 29 to render the case appealable; the appeal was therefore quashed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal quashed

Orders

  • Appeal quashed with costs