Progress Furniture Manufacturers v. Eastern Furniture Ltd.

Progress Furniture Manufacturers v. Eastern Furniture Ltd.

Peremption ran from 23 August 1956 under art.280a; the plaintiff failed to prove any agreement suspending limitation; the motions of 8 September 1958 were not premature because the peremption period had already begun and holidays are counted when they fall on the last day in peremption matters; art.1223(2) cannot be relied on without producing the factum; a clerical error in a certificate did not nullify the peremption; therefore the appeals fail.

Citation
[1960] SCR 116
Parties
Plaintiff Appellant: Progress Furniture Manufacturers Limited; Defendant Respondent: Eastern Furniture Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 December 1959
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (peremption) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side, Quebec
Outcome
Appeals dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Peremption, Computation of Time, Suspension of Limitation, Procedural Irregularity, Code of Civil Procedure Interpretation
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Limitation/prescription Peremption Computation of Time Suspension of Limitation Procedural Irregularity Code of Civil Procedure Interpretation

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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Progress Furniture Manufacturers Limited

Plaintiff Appellant

Eastern Furniture Limited

Defendant Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (peremption) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side, Quebec

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether peremption occurred where last proceeding was filing of joint case on 22 August 1956 and motions were made 8 September 1958
  2. 2 Whether plaintiff proved an agreement suspending limitation
  3. 3 Whether the 15-day period to file a memorandum (art.1223(2)) and the fact that a preceding day was Sunday prevented motion as premature

Ratio Decidendi

Peremption ran from 23 August 1956 under art.280a; the plaintiff failed to prove any agreement suspending limitation; the motions of 8 September 1958 were not premature because the peremption period had already begun and holidays are counted when they fall on the last day in peremption matters; art.1223(2) cannot be relied on without producing the factum; a clerical error in a certificate did not nullify the peremption; therefore the appeals fail.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed with costs; peremption of the two suits declared by the Court of Queen's Bench upheld