Legault v. Desève

Legault v. Desève

The clause "à la charge de l'hypothèque" was equivocal and, under Quebec civil law, did not constitute a clear and unequivocal assumption by the transferee of personal liability for the debt secured by the hypothec; therefore the respondent was not personally liable and the appeal fails.

Citation
(1920) 61 SCR 65
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Joseph Legault; Defendant/respondent: Alfred Desève
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 June 1920
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (mortgage/hypothec) / Supreme Court of Canada on Appeal From Court of King's Bench, Province of Quebec
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Court of King's Bench affirmed
Legal Topics
Hypothec, Transfer of Property, Dation En Paiement, Assumption of Personal Liability, Priority of Charges
Source Language
English
Property Law Mortgage Law Contract Interpretation Civil Procedure Quebec Civil Law Hypothec Transfer of Property Dation En Paiement +2 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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Legault

Plaintiff/appellant

Alfred Desève

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (mortgage/hypothec) / Supreme Court of Canada on Appeal From Court of King's Bench, Province of Quebec

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether taking a transfer "à la charge de l'hypothèque" creates a personal obligation on the transferee to pay the debt secured by the hypothec
  2. 2 Whether there was a valid delegation of payment creating personal liability of the transferee
  3. 3 Proper interpretation of the clause "à la charge de l'hypothèque" under Quebec civil law

Ratio Decidendi

The clause "à la charge de l'hypothèque" was equivocal and, under Quebec civil law, did not constitute a clear and unequivocal assumption by the transferee of personal liability for the debt secured by the hypothec; therefore the respondent was not personally liable and the appeal fails.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Court of King's Bench affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment of the Court of King's Bench (Q.R. 29 K.B. 375) affirmed