Wood v. Rockwell

Wood v. Rockwell

Because the trial judge effectively withdrew disputed factual issues (whether the plaintiff accepted a new note and thereby discharged the surety) despite there being evidence which, if believed by the jury, could support a verdict for the defendant, the verdict could not stand and a new trial was required.

Citation
(1906) 38 SCR 165
Parties
Appellant (defendant): John M. Wood; Respondent (plaintiff): Leonard Rockwell
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 December 1906
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (contract/suretyship) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Outcome
Appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
Surety Discharge, Acceptance of New Note, Judge's Charge With Respect to Jury, New Trial
Source Language
English
Contract Law Suretyship Civil Procedure Evidence Surety Discharge Acceptance of New Note Judge's Charge With Respect to Jury New Trial

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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John M. Wood

Appellant (defendant)

Leonard Rockwell

Respondent (plaintiff)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (contract/suretyship) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge improperly withdrew disputed factual issues from the jury by directing there was no evidence to discharge the surety
  2. 2 Whether there was sufficient evidence that the plaintiff accepted a new note and thereby discharged the surety
  3. 3 Whether a new trial should be ordered because the jury was not allowed to consider evidence favorable to defendant

Ratio Decidendi

Because the trial judge effectively withdrew disputed factual issues (whether the plaintiff accepted a new note and thereby discharged the surety) despite there being evidence which, if believed by the jury, could support a verdict for the defendant, the verdict could not stand and a new trial was required.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed.

Orders

  • New trial ordered.
  • Costs to appellant in this court and in the court en banc.