O'Brien v. Mackintosh

O'Brien v. Mackintosh

The agreement to settle Manley's judgment was not an unconditional undertaking by the respondent but was limited to paying $500 only after the Crown grant issued; the appellant failed to prove the requisite mutual mistake for rectification; accordingly the written agreement stands and the respondent could charge the costs incurred in opposing execution against the appellant (majority).

Citation
(1903) 34 SCR 169
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Bartholomew O'Brien; Respondent / Defendant: Charles Herbert Mackintosh
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 November 1903
Procedural Posture
Appeal (contract Dispute Over Sale of Timber and Settlement of Judgment) / Supreme Court of Canada on Appeal From the Supreme Court of British Columbia (final Judgment)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Supreme Court of British Columbia affirmed; rectification denied.
Legal Topics
Rectification of Instrument, Construction of Contract, Settlement of Third‑party Judgment, Costs Liability, Statute of Frauds, Equitable Mortgage
Source Language
English
Contract Property Equity Rectification of Instrument Construction of Contract Settlement of Third‑party Judgment Costs Liability Statute of Frauds +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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bartholomew O'Brien

Appellant / Plaintiff

Charles Herbert Mackintosh

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (contract Dispute Over Sale of Timber and Settlement of Judgment) / Supreme Court of Canada on Appeal From the Supreme Court of British Columbia (final Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the written sale agreement should be rectified for a mutual mistake as to consideration and deductions
  2. 2 Whether respondent undertook an unconditional obligation to settle Manley's judgment for $500
  3. 3 Whether costs incurred opposing execution of the judgment could be charged against the appellant

Ratio Decidendi

The agreement to settle Manley's judgment was not an unconditional undertaking by the respondent but was limited to paying $500 only after the Crown grant issued; the appellant failed to prove the requisite mutual mistake for rectification; accordingly the written agreement stands and the respondent could charge the costs incurred in opposing execution against the appellant (majority).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Supreme Court of British Columbia affirmed; rectification denied.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Rectification of the agreement denied; written agreement to stand as made.