Pearson v. Carpenter

Pearson v. Carpenter

Majority held the evidence established the Buffalo firm operated a bucket shop, Carpenter & Son acted as agents for that firm, the transaction was not completed until acceptance was notified in Toronto and thus was consummated in Toronto within s.201 of the Criminal Code; being an illegal wagering transaction plaintiffs could not recover. Additionally, if Carpenter & Son were agents of Pearson they lacked authority to advance monies beyond deposited margins without express instruction.

Citation
(1904) 35 SCR 380
Parties
Defendant Appellant: James Pearson; Plaintiff Respondent: Carpenter & Son
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 December 1904
Procedural Posture
Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada (civil) / On Appeal From Court of Appeal for Ontario; Final Appeal Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs
Legal Topics
Gambling/wagering in Securities and Commodities, Agent Authority and Advances, Illegality Defence Under Statute, Place of Contract Formation, Recovery on Promissory Note
Source Language
English
Agency Criminal Law Contract Law Commercial Law Gambling/wagering in Securities and Commodities Agent Authority and Advances Illegality Defence Under Statute Place of Contract Formation +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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Pearson

Defendant Appellant

Carpenter & Son

Plaintiff Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada (civil) / On Appeal From Court of Appeal for Ontario; Final Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the transactions were real purchases or mere bucket‑shop wagers
  2. 2 Whether the transactions were consummated in Toronto and thus within s.201 of the Criminal Code
  3. 3 Whether Carpenter & Son acted as agents of the Buffalo firm or of Pearson

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held the evidence established the Buffalo firm operated a bucket shop, Carpenter & Son acted as agents for that firm, the transaction was not completed until acceptance was notified in Toronto and thus was consummated in Toronto within s.201 of the Criminal Code; being an illegal wagering transaction plaintiffs could not recover. Additionally, if Carpenter & Son were agents of Pearson they lacked authority to advance monies beyond deposited margins without express instruction.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs