Lionais v. Molson's Bank

Lionais v. Molson's Bank

The majority held the executor's endorsements were not authorized by the will; the will's express clause declaring the testatrix's property insaisissable (Art. 972 C.C.) must be given effect and prevents the estate being bound for the son's accommodation endorsements; moreover a power of attorney not proved or produced at trial cannot be introduced on appeal to justify the endorsements. Accordingly the judgments below were reversed and the opposition to seizure maintained.

Citation
(1883) 10 SCR 526
Parties
Appellants (children / Opposants): J. D. E. Lionais et al.; Respondent (judgment Creditor): Molson's Bank; Defendant (testamentary Executor and Administrator): Hardoin Lionais
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 June 1883
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (opposition to Execution/seizure) / Hearing on Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench (lower Canada)
Outcome
Appeal allowed (majority). Judgments of the Superior Court and Court of Queen's Bench reversed; opposition to seizure maintained; costs to appellants.
Legal Topics
Will Construction, Executor Powers and Limits, Insaisissabilité (prohibition on Seizure), Endorsement of Promissory Notes, Third‑party Opposition to Execution (tierce Opposition), Admissibility of Documents on Appeal
Source Language
English
Estates Succession Law Civil Procedure Property Law Will Construction Executor Powers and Limits Insaisissabilité (prohibition on Seizure) Endorsement of Promissory Notes +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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J. D. E. Lionais et al.

Appellants (children / Opposants)

Molson's Bank

Respondent (judgment Creditor)

Hardoin Lionais

Defendant (testamentary Executor and Administrator)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (opposition to Execution/seizure) / Hearing on Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench (lower Canada)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the seized property belonged to the executor personally or to the testatrix's children (legatees)
  2. 2 Whether endorsements by the executor in his testamentary capacity could bind the estate for his son's promissory notes
  3. 3 Whether a power of attorney not produced or proved at trial may be relied on on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held the executor's endorsements were not authorized by the will; the will's express clause declaring the testatrix's property insaisissable (Art. 972 C.C.) must be given effect and prevents the estate being bound for the son's accommodation endorsements; moreover a power of attorney not proved or produced at trial cannot be introduced on appeal to justify the endorsements. Accordingly the judgments below were reversed and the opposition to seizure maintained.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed (majority). Judgments of the Superior Court and Court of Queen's Bench reversed; opposition to seizure maintained; costs to appellants.

Orders

  • Reverse judgments of the Superior Court and Court of Queen's Bench (appeals allowed)
  • Maintain appellants' opposition to the seizure of the estate property