Soper v. Littlejohn

Soper v. Littlejohn

The court held that the lessors were distinct from the company and validly elected to forfeit the lease on the company's assignment; the assignee's statutory three‑month right to possession and subsequent receipts or payments did not amount to waiver of that forfeiture; consequently the forfeiture stood and the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
(1901) 31 SCR 572
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Warren Y. Soper; Respondent/plaintiff: James E.B. Littlejohn; Respondent/plaintiff: Joseph Crawford Vaughan; Defendant/lessor: Thomas Fane; Defendant/lessor: Charles F. Lavender
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 November 1901
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment by Supreme Court of Canada on Appeal From Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of Court of Appeal reversed; judgment of Divisional Court (Meredith J.) restored.
Legal Topics
Lease Forfeiture, Waiver by Acceptance of Rent, Assignment for Benefit of Creditors, Separate Legal Personality, Covenant Running With the Land, Assignee Statutory Possession
Source Language
english
Property Law Contract Law Company Law Insolvency Law Landlord and Tenant Lease Forfeiture Waiver by Acceptance of Rent Assignment for Benefit of Creditors +3 more

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Warren Y. Soper

Appellant/defendant

James E.B. Littlejohn

Respondent/plaintiff

Joseph Crawford Vaughan

Respondent/plaintiff

Thomas Fane

Defendant/lessor

Charles F. Lavender

Defendant/lessor

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment by Supreme Court of Canada on Appeal From Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the lessors who were shareholders in the lessee company were bound by acts of the company or were distinct legal persons
  2. 2 Whether the lease was forfeited on the company's assignment and six months rent became immediately due
  3. 3 Whether acceptance of rent or other payments by the lessors amounted to a waiver of the forfeiture

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the lessors were distinct from the company and validly elected to forfeit the lease on the company's assignment; the assignee's statutory three‑month right to possession and subsequent receipts or payments did not amount to waiver of that forfeiture; consequently the forfeiture stood and the appellant was entitled to possession and mesne profits; the Court of Appeal's contrary conclusion was reversed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of Court of Appeal reversed; judgment of Divisional Court (Meredith J.) restored.

Orders

  • Judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario is reversed and the judgment of the Divisional Court restored.
  • Record remitted to the High Court with directions to carry on the account of mesne profits up to the time the appellant recovers possession and to enforce payment of the same.