Geall v. Dominion Creosoting Co. / Salter v. Dominion Creosoting Co.

Geall v. Dominion Creosoting Co. / Salter v. Dominion Creosoting Co.

When the condition upon which bonds filed to secure a stay would be voided (here refusal of special leave to appeal and non-payment of the judgment) is established, judgment creditors may proceed to sue on the bonds without first exhausting execution remedies against the judgment debtors; the court may protect surety interests by exercising its discretion over costs.

Citation
(1918) 57 SCR 226
Parties
Plaintiff Appellant: Grace S. Geall; Plaintiff Appellant: George W. Adams; Plaintiff Appellant: Joseph A. Salter; Defendant Respondent: The Dominion Creosoting Company; Defendant Respondent: The British Columbia Electric Railway Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 October 1918
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Motion in Chambers Post Judgment for Delivery Out of Bonds to Put in Suit After Stay of Proceedings and Refusal of Special Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Motion granted
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Bonds as Security for Stay, Special Leave to Appeal, Liability of Surety, Requirement to Exhaust Execution Remedies, Costs
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Suretyship Appeal Execution Stay of Proceedings Bonds as Security for Stay Special Leave to Appeal Liability of Surety +2 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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Grace S. Geall

Plaintiff Appellant

George W. Adams

Plaintiff Appellant

Joseph A. Salter

Plaintiff Appellant

The Dominion Creosoting Company

Defendant Respondent

The British Columbia Electric Railway Company

Defendant Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Motion in Chambers Post Judgment for Delivery Out of Bonds to Put in Suit After Stay of Proceedings and Refusal of Special Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether judgment creditors must exhaust execution remedies against judgment debtors before suing on bonds filed to secure a stay
  2. 2 Whether refusal of special leave to appeal together with non-payment by defendants establishes liability on the bonds
  3. 3 Extent of court's discretion to protect surety's interests in proceedings on bonds

Ratio Decidendi

When the condition upon which bonds filed to secure a stay would be voided (here refusal of special leave to appeal and non-payment of the judgment) is established, judgment creditors may proceed to sue on the bonds without first exhausting execution remedies against the judgment debtors; the court may protect surety interests by exercising its discretion over costs.

Court Disposition

Motion granted

Orders

  • Delivery out of the bonds permitted to enable plaintiffs to put the bonds in suit
  • Motion granted