Ames-Holden Co. v. Hatfield

Ames-Holden Co. v. Hatfield

The agreement, read as a whole, did not create a sale; Hatfield retained title and control (inspection, accounting, remittances, and right to determine the agreement), therefore goods supplied remained Hatfield's property until sold in the ordinary course and were not subject to execution against West.

Citation
(1898) 29 SCR 95
Parties
Appellants (defendants): Ames-Holden Company and others; Respondent (plaintiff): Thomas A. Hatfield
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 October 1898
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (contract/interpleader) / Appeal From the Supreme Court of the North‑west Territories Following Trial of an Interpleader Issue
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Retention of Title, Consignment/agency Vs Sale, Liability of Goods to Execution, Interpleader Procedure
Source Language
English
Contract Property Agency Execution and Seizure Retention of Title Consignment/agency Vs Sale Liability of Goods to Execution Interpleader Procedure

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ames-Holden Company and others

Appellants (defendants)

Thomas A. Hatfield

Respondent (plaintiff)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (contract/interpleader) / Appeal From the Supreme Court of the North‑west Territories Following Trial of an Interpleader Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether goods supplied by Hatfield became the property of West and thus liable to execution against West
  2. 2 Whether the agreement constituted a sale or an agency/consignment arrangement
  3. 3 Whether Hatfield retained sufficient rights (inspection, accounting, termination) to preserve title until sale

Ratio Decidendi

The agreement, read as a whole, did not create a sale; Hatfield retained title and control (inspection, accounting, remittances, and right to determine the agreement), therefore goods supplied remained Hatfield's property until sold in the ordinary course and were not subject to execution against West.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Interpleader judgment in favour of Thomas A. Hatfield affirmed.