Ryan v. Willoughby

Ryan v. Willoughby

Plaintiff failed to prove his replication that the defendant wrongfully caused the council to withhold consent, and because written consent of the corporation was a condition precedent which plaintiff did not obtain, plaintiff cannot maintain an action against the proposed subcontractor; appeal dismissed.

Citation
(1900) 31 SCR 33
Parties
Plaintiff Appellant: Matthew Ryan; Defendant Respondent: William Willoughby
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 November 1900
Procedural Posture
Contract / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Sub‑letting Condition, Consent of Municipal Council, Condition Precedent to Contract Validity, Burden of Proof on Replication, Conflict of Interest/resignation of Councillor
Source Language
English
Contract Municipal Law Civil Procedure Sub‑letting Condition Consent of Municipal Council Condition Precedent to Contract Validity Burden of Proof on Replication Conflict of Interest/resignation of Councillor

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Matthew Ryan

Plaintiff Appellant

William Willoughby

Defendant Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contract / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether written consent of the municipal corporation was a condition precedent to a valid subcontract
  2. 2 Whether defendant wrongfully procured the council to withhold consent to the subcontract
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff proved his replication that the defendant instigated the council's refusal

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff failed to prove his replication that the defendant wrongfully caused the council to withhold consent, and because written consent of the corporation was a condition precedent which plaintiff did not obtain, plaintiff cannot maintain an action against the proposed subcontractor; appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.