Gagnon v. Prince

Gagnon v. Prince

Respondent failed to prove that the stock in trade constituted a sale rather than a gift and therefore could not charge the minor for $5,466.63; additionally the only evidence for the two cash items was an extrajudicial affidavit by a deceased bookkeeper which is inadmissible, so those items cannot be charged —...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
(1882) 7 SCR 386
Parties
Appellant (tutor to Minor): Antoine Gagnon; Respondent (universal Legatee / Administratrix): Dame Hermine Prince
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 June 1882
Procedural Posture
Débats De Comptes (accounting of Administration of Minor's Estate) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench for Province of Quebec (appeal Side)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of Court of Queen's Bench reversed in respect of the three contested items; costs awarded to appellant in all courts.
Legal Topics
Accounting by Tutor, Sale Versus Donation of Movables, Onus Probandi (burden of Proof), Admissibility of Extrajudicial Affidavit, Inventory Entries, Double Entry in Books
Source Language
english
Estates Succession Trusts Evidence Civil Procedure Accounting by Tutor Sale Versus Donation of Movables Onus Probandi (burden of Proof) +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Antoine Gagnon

Appellant (tutor to Minor)

Dame Hermine Prince

Respondent (universal Legatee / Administratrix)

Procedural Posture

Débats De Comptes (accounting of Administration of Minor's Estate) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench for Province of Quebec (appeal Side)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the stock in trade was sold by grandfather (Louis Richard) to his son (L. L. Richard) or was a gift
  2. 2 Who bore the burden of proof to establish a sale and terms of payment
  3. 3 Whether extrajudicial affidavit of a deceased bookkeeper (Hébert) was admissible evidence to support items charged

Ratio Decidendi

Respondent failed to prove that the stock in trade constituted a sale rather than a gift and therefore could not charge the minor for $5,466.63; additionally the only evidence for the two cash items was an extrajudicial affidavit by a deceased bookkeeper which is inadmissible, so those items cannot be charged — appeal allowed and charges struck.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of Court of Queen's Bench reversed in respect of the three contested items; costs awarded to appellant in all courts.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs in all courts against the respondent
  • Strike off and disallow the expenditure items charged against the minor of $5,466.63, $451.07 and $190.76