Fairbanks v. Barlow

Fairbanks v. Barlow

The instruments were in substance a pledge not accompanied by delivery; because the appellants never obtained possession and could not show title against bona fide creditors, the pledge was inoperative as to competing creditors and the intervening judgment creditor; therefore appellants were not entitled to recover the locomotives and the appeal was dismissed.

Citation
(1887) 14 SCR 217
Parties
Appellants / Plaintiffs: Horace Fairbanks et al.; Respondents / Defendants: Bradley Barlow et al.; Intervenant / Respondent (judgment Creditor): James O'Halloran
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 March 1887
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal From the Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada (appeal Side) to the Supreme Court of Canada
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada (Appeal Side) and Superior Court affirmed.
Legal Topics
Pledge Without Delivery, Possession Versus Title, Rights of Creditors, Intervention by Judgment Creditor, Requirement of Delivery for Pledge, Simulated Sale
Source Language
English
Sale Pledge Secured Transactions Insolvency Property Law Civil Procedure Pledge Without Delivery Possession Versus Title +4 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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Horace Fairbanks et al.

Appellants / Plaintiffs

Bradley Barlow et al.

Respondents / Defendants

James O'Halloran

Intervenant / Respondent (judgment Creditor)

Procedural Posture

Appeal / On Appeal From the Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada (appeal Side) to the Supreme Court of Canada

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the January and May 1883 instruments amounted to a sale or a pledge
  2. 2 Whether a pledge not accompanied by delivery is enforceable against third party creditors or a bona fide judgment creditor
  3. 3 Whether appellants had title or possession sufficient to recover locomotives from the railway company or trustees

Ratio Decidendi

The instruments were in substance a pledge not accompanied by delivery; because the appellants never obtained possession and could not show title against bona fide creditors, the pledge was inoperative as to competing creditors and the intervening judgment creditor; therefore appellants were not entitled to recover the locomotives and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada (Appeal Side) and Superior Court affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment of the courts below dismissing the appellants' action affirmed