J. R. Watkins Co. v. Minke

J. R. Watkins Co. v. Minke

Because the respondents were illiterate and were deceived as to the document's contents, they were not bound by the portion of the guarantee creating liability for past indebtedness which was not explained to them; therefore the plea of non est factum succeeded and the guarantee could not be enforced against them for the past debt.

Citation
[1928] SCR 414
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: J. R. Watkins Co.; Principal Debtor / Defendant: Jansen; Respondent / Defendant (surety): Minke; Respondent / Defendant (surety): Bort
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 May 1928
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (guarantee and Suretyship) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan; Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan affirmed; action against respondents dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Est Factum, Illiteracy and Capacity, Misrepresentation as to Contents of Instrument, Severability of Obligations in Guarantees, Liability for Past Indebtedness Vs Future Advances
Source Language
English
Guarantee and Suretyship Contract Misrepresentation Equity Non Est Factum Illiteracy and Capacity Misrepresentation as to Contents of Instrument Severability of Obligations in Guarantees +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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J. R. Watkins Co.

Appellant / Plaintiff

Jansen

Principal Debtor / Defendant

Minke

Respondent / Defendant (surety)

Bort

Respondent / Defendant (surety)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (guarantee and Suretyship) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan; Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether illiterate sureties misled as to the contents of a guarantee are bound by an unexplained obligation for past indebtedness
  2. 2 Whether a guarantee containing separate obligations (past debt and future advances) can be enforced in part when only one part was explained to the signatories
  3. 3 Application of the plea non est factum to illiterate parties who were deceived as to instrument contents

Ratio Decidendi

Because the respondents were illiterate and were deceived as to the document's contents, they were not bound by the portion of the guarantee creating liability for past indebtedness which was not explained to them; therefore the plea of non est factum succeeded and the guarantee could not be enforced against them for the past debt.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan affirmed; action against respondents dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Judgment of the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan affirmed.