Bateman v. Scott

Bateman v. Scott

The appeal was quashed for want of jurisdiction because the real and substantial question was whether the conveyance was made with fraudulent intent to defeat creditors (a personal creditor remedy under the Statute of Elizabeth), not a direct question of title to land under s.48(a), and the creditors' claims did not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
(1916) 53 SCR 145
Parties
Appellant (plaintiff): F.J. Bateman; Respondent (defendant): Cornelius Scott; Respondent (defendant): Margaret Scott
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 March 1916
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / On Appeal From Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario; Motion to Quash for Want of Jurisdiction
Outcome
Appeal quashed for want of jurisdiction
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Conveyance, Statute of Elizabeth, Jurisdiction Under Supreme Court Act S.48(a), Title to Land
Source Language
english
Property Law Civil Procedure Appeal Jurisdiction Fraudulent Conveyance Statute of Elizabeth Jurisdiction Under Supreme Court Act S.48(a) Title to Land

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

Parties

F.J. Bateman

Appellant (plaintiff)

Cornelius Scott

Respondent (defendant)

Margaret Scott

Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / On Appeal From Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario; Motion to Quash for Want of Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a creditor's action to set aside a conveyance as fraudulent under the Statute of Elizabeth raises a question of title to land sufficient to confer Supreme Court of Canada jurisdiction under s.48(a) of the Supreme Court Act
  2. 2 Whether the conveyance to the wife was made with fraudulent intent to defeat creditors

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was quashed for want of jurisdiction because the real and substantial question was whether the conveyance was made with fraudulent intent to defeat creditors (a personal creditor remedy under the Statute of Elizabeth), not a direct question of title to land under s.48(a), and the creditors' claims did not exceed the jurisdictional monetary threshold.

Court Disposition

Appeal quashed for want of jurisdiction

Orders

  • Appeal quashed with costs