Cohen v. Dominion Atlantic Ry. Co.

Cohen v. Dominion Atlantic Ry. Co.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal because, on review of the evidence, there was no evidence upon which it could justly be found that the respondent contracted an obligation to supply the large flat cars; having reached that conclusion it was unnecessary to decide the undisclosed principal issue.

Citation
[1931] SCR 715
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Cohen; Defendant/respondent: Dominion Atlantic Railway Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 June 1931
Procedural Posture
Contract Action (parol Contract to Supply Rail Cars) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia En Banc; Trial Judgment for Plaintiff Reversed by En Banc and Action Dismissed
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; action dismissed (en banc judgment upheld by Supreme Court of Canada).
Legal Topics
Parol Contract, Undisclosed Principal, Privity of Contract, Sufficiency of Evidence, Assessment of Damages
Source Language
English
Contract Parol Contract Undisclosed Principal Privity of Contract Sufficiency of Evidence Assessment of Damages

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cohen

Plaintiff/appellant

Dominion Atlantic Railway Company

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Contract Action (parol Contract to Supply Rail Cars) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia En Banc; Trial Judgment for Plaintiff Reversed by En Banc and Action Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a binding parol contract existed obliging defendant to supply 12–15 large flat cars
  2. 2 Whether plaintiff, as an undisclosed foreign principal, could sue on the alleged agreement
  3. 3 Whether the evidence supported the trial judge's finding of contract

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal because, on review of the evidence, there was no evidence upon which it could justly be found that the respondent contracted an obligation to supply the large flat cars; having reached that conclusion it was unnecessary to decide the undisclosed principal issue.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; action dismissed (en banc judgment upheld by Supreme Court of Canada).

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Action dismissed with costs.