Donohoe v. Hull

Donohoe v. Hull

The appeal is allowed: the evidence established the original transfer to the wife was bona fide and paid with her funds; in any event the garnishee proceedings were incorrectly employed because the purchaser was not Millward's debtor to the husband and the debt (if any) was not one the husband could enforce alone; even if fraudulent, the proper remedy was an independent suit in equity, not garnishee statutory proceedings; therefore Rouleau J.'s dismissal is restored.

Citation
(1895) 24 SCR 683
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Catherine Donohoe; Respondents/plaintiffs: Hull Bros. & Co and Others
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 June 1895
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal From Supreme Court of the North West Territories; Final Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs; judgment of Rouleau J. restored.
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Conveyance, Garnishee Proceedings, Statute of Elizabeth (13 Eliz. C.5), Attachability of Debt, Equitable Jurisdiction, Trusts and Trustees
Source Language
English
Family Law Property Law Equity Fraudulent Conveyance Garnishee Proceedings Statute of Elizabeth (13 Eliz. C.5) Attachability of Debt Equitable Jurisdiction +1 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Catherine Donohoe

Appellant/defendant

Hull Bros. & Co and Others

Respondents/plaintiffs

Procedural Posture

Appeal / On Appeal From Supreme Court of the North West Territories; Final Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the transfer of land to the wife was a voluntary conveyance void as to creditors under the Statute of Elizabeth
  2. 2 Whether the purchase money in purchaser's hands was a debt attachable by garnishee proceedings by the husband's judgment creditors
  3. 3 Whether a court exercising equitable jurisdiction may decide and grant the relief claimed in statutory garnishee proceedings or whether an independent suit in equity is required

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is allowed: the evidence established the original transfer to the wife was bona fide and paid with her funds; in any event the garnishee proceedings were incorrectly employed because the purchaser was not Millward's debtor to the husband and the debt (if any) was not one the husband could enforce alone; even if fraudulent, the proper remedy was an independent suit in equity, not garnishee statutory proceedings; therefore Rouleau J.'s dismissal is restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs; judgment of Rouleau J. restored.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs both in this court and the court below
  • Judgment of Mr. Justice Rouleau dismissing the garnishee proceedings restored