Meisner v. Meisner

Meisner v. Meisner

The majority affirmed the trial and provincial appeal courts: the defendant failed to prove that his possession and acts were unequivocally referable to the alleged parol agreement rather than to the existing lease/exchange, therefore there was no part performance and the Statute of Frauds barred his equitable title defence.

Citation
(1905) 36 SCR 34
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Samuel Meisner; Respondent/plaintiff: Jacob Meisner
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 March 1905
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Decision by Supreme Court of Canada on Appeal From Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Part Performance, Parol Agreement, Lease Vs Equitable Title, Possession, Specific Performance
Source Language
English
Property Law Equity Contract Evidence Statute of Frauds Part Performance Parol Agreement Lease Vs Equitable Title +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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel Meisner

Appellant/defendant

Jacob Meisner

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Decision by Supreme Court of Canada on Appeal From Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a parol agreement vested an equitable title in the defendant for the disputed acreage
  2. 2 Whether acts relied on constituted part performance sufficient to take the oral agreement out of the Statute of Frauds
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's possession was referable to the alleged parol agreement or to existing lease/tenancy arrangements

Ratio Decidendi

The majority affirmed the trial and provincial appeal courts: the defendant failed to prove that his possession and acts were unequivocally referable to the alleged parol agreement rather than to the existing lease/exchange, therefore there was no part performance and the Statute of Frauds barred his equitable title defence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.