Jones v. Tucker

Jones v. Tucker

Where a defendant to be decreed to convey land in the province resides within the provincial jurisdiction the court may exercise its equitable in personam jurisdiction to decree specific performance though part of the consideration is foreign land; mutuality exists because remedies are reciprocal and the appellate court did not abuse its discretion in ordering a reference into the foreign title; therefore the judgment of the Supreme Court of Saskatchewan was affirmed (Idington J. dissenting).

Citation
(1916) 53 SCR 431
Parties
Appellant/defendant: William W. Jones; Respondent/plaintiff: Henry C. Tucker
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 June 1916
Procedural Posture
Contract Specific Performance (equity) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Supreme Court of Saskatchewan (on Variation Ordering Reference for Inquiry on Foreign Title)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Supreme Court of Saskatchewan affirmed; Idington J. dissenting.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Mutuality of Remedy, Jurisdiction in Personam, Foreign Land, Reference for Title, Discretionary Relief, Appealability
Source Language
English
Contract Equity Property Civil Procedure Conflict of Laws Specific Performance Mutuality of Remedy Jurisdiction in Personam +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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William W. Jones

Appellant/defendant

Henry C. Tucker

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Contract Specific Performance (equity) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Supreme Court of Saskatchewan (on Variation Ordering Reference for Inquiry on Foreign Title)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Saskatchewan courts have jurisdiction to decree specific performance of a contract involving foreign land where defendant resides in the province
  2. 2 Whether mutuality of remedy exists when plaintiff is a foreign resident and part of consideration is land abroad
  3. 3 Whether the appellate court erred in ordering a reference for inquiry and report on plaintiff's foreign title and thereby giving a second opportunity to prove title

Ratio Decidendi

Where a defendant to be decreed to convey land in the province resides within the provincial jurisdiction the court may exercise its equitable in personam jurisdiction to decree specific performance though part of the consideration is foreign land; mutuality exists because remedies are reciprocal and the appellate court did not abuse its discretion in ordering a reference into the foreign title; therefore the judgment of the Supreme Court of Saskatchewan was affirmed (Idington J. dissenting).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Supreme Court of Saskatchewan affirmed; Idington J. dissenting.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs to respondent
  • Order of the Supreme Court of Saskatchewan (8 Sask. L.R. 387) affirmed, including reference for inquiry and report on plaintiff's title to the Iowa lands and liberty for either party to apply for further judgment upon filing of report