City of Montreal-Nord v. Guilmette

City of Montreal-Nord v. Guilmette

The failure of the appellant to answer interrogatories resulting in those matters being declared pro confessis, together with the promissory note, constituted sufficient evidence to enter judgment against the municipality; therefore the appeal was dismissed.

Citation
(1919) 59 SCR 689
Parties
Appellant (municipality): City of Montreal-Nord; Respondent (plaintiff): Guilmette
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 June 1919
Procedural Posture
Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Superior Court of Quebec (court of Review) / Final Judgment on Appeal (dismissed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of Court of Review affirmed.
Legal Topics
Promissory Note, Practice and Procedure, Interrogatories Pro Confessis, Default Judgment, Weight of Evidence
Source Language
English
Municipal Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Evidence Promissory Note Practice and Procedure Interrogatories Pro Confessis Default Judgment +1 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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

City of Montreal-Nord

Appellant (municipality)

Guilmette

Respondent (plaintiff)

Procedural Posture

Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Superior Court of Quebec (court of Review) / Final Judgment on Appeal (dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a municipality is liable on a promissory note signed by municipal officers
  2. 2 Whether failure to answer interrogatories and their being declared pro confessis furnishes sufficient evidence to support judgment
  3. 3 Whether additional evidence is required where interrogatories are admitted by default

Ratio Decidendi

The failure of the appellant to answer interrogatories resulting in those matters being declared pro confessis, together with the promissory note, constituted sufficient evidence to enter judgment against the municipality; therefore the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of Court of Review affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Judgment of the Court of Review and the trial court maintaining the respondent's action affirmed.