Glesby v. Mitchell

Glesby v. Mitchell

The appellate court correctly ordered a new trial because factual questions critical to liability — whether the note was an accommodation instrument (no consideration), whether there was consideration by way of extension/forbearance of a third party debt, and whether an oral agreement existed not to negotiate after maturity — were disputed and should have been submitted to the jury; parol evidence is admissible to prove want of consideration and, if found, plaintiff who took the notes after maturity for no value has no better rights than the payee; the order for new trial was not an exercise of judicial discretion precluding appeal because the defendant was entitled as of right to a jury...

Citation
[1932] SCR 260
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Edward Glesby; Defendant/respondent: J. Bert Mitchell
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 December 1931
Procedural Posture
Contract Promissory Notes (bills and Notes) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Supreme Court of Nova Scotia En Banc; Review of Order Directing New Trial and Motion to Quash Jurisdiction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of Supreme Court of Nova Scotia en banc ordering a new trial affirmed; respondent's motion to quash appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Promissory Note Consideration, Accommodation Note, Parol Evidence Rule, Holder After Maturity, Oral Collateral Agreement Not to Negotiate, New Trial Jurisdiction, Judicial Discretion Under Supreme Court Act S.38
Source Language
English
Contract Commercial Law Bills and Notes Evidence Civil Procedure Appellate Jurisdiction Promissory Note Consideration Accommodation Note +5 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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edward Glesby

Plaintiff/appellant

J. Bert Mitchell

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Contract Promissory Notes (bills and Notes) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Supreme Court of Nova Scotia En Banc; Review of Order Directing New Trial and Motion to Quash Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether parol evidence is admissible to prove lack of consideration for a promissory note despite words 'value received'
  2. 2 Whether an oral agreement that a note will not be negotiated after maturity is admissible against an overdue holder
  3. 3 Whether the note was an accommodation note or given in consideration of a debt of a third person (extension/forbearance)

Ratio Decidendi

The appellate court correctly ordered a new trial because factual questions critical to liability — whether the note was an accommodation instrument (no consideration), whether there was consideration by way of extension/forbearance of a third party debt, and whether an oral agreement existed not to negotiate after maturity — were disputed and should have been submitted to the jury; parol evidence is admissible to prove want of consideration and, if found, plaintiff who took the notes after maturity for no value has no better rights than the payee; the order for new trial was not an exercise of judicial discretion precluding appeal because the defendant was entitled as of right to a jury...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of Supreme Court of Nova Scotia en banc ordering a new trial affirmed; respondent's motion to quash appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • New trial ordered by Supreme Court of Nova Scotia en banc affirmed
  • Appeal dismissed with costs