Mulcahy v. Archibald

Mulcahy v. Archibald

Because the goods had been transferred to the appellant to secure an existing debt and she gave valuable consideration and did not act as an instrument to benefit the transferor, the transfer was not void under 13 Eliz. c.5; therefore the herring were appellant's property and the trial judge's judgment in her favor was restored.

Citation
(1898) 28 SCR 523
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Addra Jane Mulcahy; Plaintiff/appellant: Patrick J. Mulcahy; Defendant/respondent: Donald Archibald
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 June 1898
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (contract; Debtor and Creditor) / Appeal; Judgment Delivered by Supreme Court of Canada
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of trial judge restored.
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Transfer, Statute of Elizabeth (13 Eliz. C.5), Replevin, Execution, Security for Antecedent Debt
Source Language
English
Contract Property Debtor and Creditor Equity Fraudulent Transfer Statute of Elizabeth (13 Eliz. C.5) Replevin Execution +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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Addra Jane Mulcahy

Plaintiff/appellant

Patrick J. Mulcahy

Plaintiff/appellant

Donald Archibald

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (contract; Debtor and Creditor) / Appeal; Judgment Delivered by Supreme Court of Canada

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the transfer of goods was void under 13 Eliz. c.5 as a fraud on creditors
  2. 2 Whether the 550 barrels of herring were the property of the appellant or of Wrayton at the time of levy
  3. 3 Whether a transfer to secure an existing debt is protected despite debtor's intent to delay or defeat other creditors

Ratio Decidendi

Because the goods had been transferred to the appellant to secure an existing debt and she gave valuable consideration and did not act as an instrument to benefit the transferor, the transfer was not void under 13 Eliz. c.5; therefore the herring were appellant's property and the trial judge's judgment in her favor was restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of trial judge restored.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Judgment of trial judge (Meagher J.) restored