Blakeley et al. v. Gould et al.

Blakeley et al. v. Gould et al.

Because the interest assigned consisted of expected profits not legally exigible by creditors at the time of the assignment, the assignment did not fall within the Act respecting assignments and preferences and was not a voidable fraudulent preference; accordingly the appeal failed and the lower courts' judgments were affirmed.

Citation
(1897) 27 SCR 682
Parties
Appellants/plaintiffs: Blakeley et al.; Respondents/defendants: Gould et al.
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 November 1897
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment — Appeal Dismissed by Supreme Court of Canada
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Preferences, Assignment of Expected Profits, Statute of Elizabeth, Assets Exigible in Execution, Undue Pressure/duress
Source Language
English
Bankruptcy and Insolvency Fraudulent Preferences Assignment of Expected Profits Statute of Elizabeth Assets Exigible in Execution Undue Pressure/duress

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Blakeley et al.

Appellants/plaintiffs

Gould et al.

Respondents/defendants

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment — Appeal Dismissed by Supreme Court of Canada

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an assignment of expected profits constituted a fraudulent preference under the Statute of Elizabeth and the Act respecting assignments and preferences
  2. 2 Whether the subject of the assignment was property legally reachable by creditors at the time of the assignment
  3. 3 Whether an assignment executed under pressure or duress is void or can be validated

Ratio Decidendi

Because the interest assigned consisted of expected profits not legally exigible by creditors at the time of the assignment, the assignment did not fall within the Act respecting assignments and preferences and was not a voidable fraudulent preference; accordingly the appeal failed and the lower courts' judgments were affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs to respondents
  • Judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario (24 Ont. App. R. 153) affirmed