Carruthers & Co. v. Schmidt

Carruthers & Co. v. Schmidt

A broker's action to recover commissions and outlays for purchases and sales executed on a principal's behalf is not an action upon the contracts of sale within article 1235(4) C.C.; therefore parol evidence to prove the mandate and execution of transactions is admissible under article 1233 C.C.; Trenholme v. McLennan on this point is overruled.

Citation
(1916) 54 SCR 131
Parties
Plaintiff (appellant): James Carruthers & Co.; Defendant (respondent): Ernest A. Schmidt
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 October 1916
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of King's Bench, Province of Quebec; Hearing on Admissibility of Parol Evidence
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of the Court of King's Bench reversed; matter referred back for further hearing and decision
Legal Topics
Parol Evidence, Brokers' Commissions, Mandate/agency, Statute of Frauds (article 1235 C.c.), Proof in Commercial Matters (article 1233 C.c.)
Source Language
English
Commercial Law Agency Contract Law Evidence Sale of Goods Securities Parol Evidence Brokers' Commissions +3 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Carruthers & Co.

Plaintiff (appellant)

Ernest A. Schmidt

Defendant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of King's Bench, Province of Quebec; Hearing on Admissibility of Parol Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a broker may prove purchases and sales made on behalf of a principal by parol evidence under article 1233 C.C.
  2. 2 Whether article 1235(4) C.C. (Statute of Frauds) bars an action by a broker to recover commissions and outlays when the sales/purchases were executed on the principal's account
  3. 3 Whether executed contracts fall outside the protection of article 1235(4) C.C. and related authorities

Ratio Decidendi

A broker's action to recover commissions and outlays for purchases and sales executed on a principal's behalf is not an action upon the contracts of sale within article 1235(4) C.C.; therefore parol evidence to prove the mandate and execution of transactions is admissible under article 1233 C.C.; Trenholme v. McLennan on this point is overruled.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of the Court of King's Bench reversed; matter referred back for further hearing and decision

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Action referred back for further hearing and decision