Lovitt v. The King

Lovitt v. The King

Majority held the deposit receipts evidenced a simple contract debt of the Bank of British North America (an English corporation) whose situs for these purposes was outside New Brunswick (governed by the testator's domicile and proper forum of administration); therefore the sums were not 'property within the province' under the Succession Duty Act and New Brunswick could not constitutionally impose succession duty on them. Appeal allowed with costs; judgment below reversed.

Citation
(1910) 43 SCR 106
Parties
Appellants / Defendants: Irvine A. Lovitt and Others, Executors of the last will and Testament of George H. Lovitt, Deceased; Respondent / Plaintiff: His Majesty The King, represented by the Receiver-General of New Brunswick
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 March 1910
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal From the Supreme Court of New Brunswick on a Stated Case
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs; judgment of Supreme Court of New Brunswick reversed.
Legal Topics
Succession Duties, Situs of Choses in Action, Domicile, Branch Bank Liability, Ancillary Probate, Provincial Taxation Limits Under BNA Act S.92
Source Language
English
Estates Taxation Conflict of Laws Banking Law Constitutional Law Succession Duties Situs of Choses in Action Domicile +3 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Irvine A. Lovitt and Others, Executors of the last will and Testament of George H. Lovitt, Deceased

Appellants / Defendants

His Majesty The King, represented by the Receiver-General of New Brunswick

Respondent / Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal From the Supreme Court of New Brunswick on a Stated Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether deposits evidenced by branch bank receipts constituted property 'within' New Brunswick for purposes of the Succession Duty Act
  2. 2 Whether the situs of a simple contract debt due by a bank with head office abroad is the debtor's head office or the local branch where deposited
  3. 3 Whether the New Brunswick Succession Duty Act could constitutionally impose duty on property of a non-domiciled decedent

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held the deposit receipts evidenced a simple contract debt of the Bank of British North America (an English corporation) whose situs for these purposes was outside New Brunswick (governed by the testator's domicile and proper forum of administration); therefore the sums were not 'property within the province' under the Succession Duty Act and New Brunswick could not constitutionally impose succession duty on them. Appeal allowed with costs; judgment below reversed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs; judgment of Supreme Court of New Brunswick reversed.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs to appellants
  • Judgment of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick reversed