McKercher v. Sanderson

McKercher v. Sanderson

The evidence preponderated that the purchase was a joint purchase and the appellant was legally liable for an ascertained portion of the purchase money; that liability and payments gave rise to a resulting trust in favor of the appellant for his interest in the land; parol evidence and the surrounding circumstances supported that finding, so the trial judge’s decision must be restored.

Citation
(1887) 15 SCR 296
Parties
Defendant/appellant: William McKercher; Plaintiff/respondent: William Sanderson
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 December 1887
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal From the Court of Appeal for Ontario to the Supreme Court of Canada
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of the trial judge (Armour J.) restored; Court of Appeal judgment reversed.
Legal Topics
Resulting Trust, Joint Purchase, Statute of Frauds, Parol Evidence, Deed as Prima Facie Evidence, Credibility of Witnesses, Costs
Source Language
English
Property Trusts Equity Contract Evidence Resulting Trust Joint Purchase Statute of Frauds +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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William McKercher

Defendant/appellant

William Sanderson

Plaintiff/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / On Appeal From the Court of Appeal for Ontario to the Supreme Court of Canada

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the purchase was a joint purchase or made solely by the plaintiff
  2. 2 Whether payments and joint promissory notes created a resulting trust in favor of the appellant
  3. 3 Whether the payments were loans or purchase contributions

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence preponderated that the purchase was a joint purchase and the appellant was legally liable for an ascertained portion of the purchase money; that liability and payments gave rise to a resulting trust in favor of the appellant for his interest in the land; parol evidence and the surrounding circumstances supported that finding, so the trial judge’s decision must be restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of the trial judge (Armour J.) restored; Court of Appeal judgment reversed.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Judgment of Mr. Justice Armour restored