Jackson v. Drake, Jackson & Helmcken

Jackson v. Drake, Jackson & Helmcken

The written statement constituted an account stated and an admission of liability implying a promise to pay the stated balance; alleged oral collateral agreements that would vary or nullify the written instrument were inadmissible under the parol evidence rule and reformation for mistake was not available because the evidence was vague and not sufficiently clear.

Citation
(1906) 37 SCR 315
Parties
Appellant (plaintiff): Robert Edwin Jackson; Respondents (defendants): Drake, Jackson & Helmcken
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 March 1906
Procedural Posture
Account Stated; Partnership Dissolution; Bills of Exchange / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Supreme Court of British Columbia
Outcome
Appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
Account Stated, Parol Evidence Rule, Collateral Agreement, Promise to Pay, Reformation for Mistake
Source Language
English
Contract Law Partnership Law Evidence Law Equity Account Stated Parol Evidence Rule Collateral Agreement Promise to Pay +1 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Edwin Jackson

Appellant (plaintiff)

Drake, Jackson & Helmcken

Respondents (defendants)

Procedural Posture

Account Stated; Partnership Dissolution; Bills of Exchange / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Supreme Court of British Columbia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the written statement constituted an account stated implying a promise to pay
  2. 2 Whether alleged oral collateral agreements could be proved to vary or nullify the written statement (parol evidence rule)
  3. 3 Whether reformation for mutual mistake was available

Ratio Decidendi

The written statement constituted an account stated and an admission of liability implying a promise to pay the stated balance; alleged oral collateral agreements that would vary or nullify the written instrument were inadmissible under the parol evidence rule and reformation for mistake was not available because the evidence was vague and not sufficiently clear.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs here and in the court below.
  • Judgment entered for plaintiff against the surviving defendant Helmcken for the amount sued for with costs.