Traves v. Forrest

Traves v. Forrest

The agreement vested in the respondent an equitable interest in the ore to be mined which was not a 'bill of sale' requiring registration under the B.C. Bills of Sale Act; the appellant had notice (actual or constructive) and could not claim priority as a purchaser for value without notice, therefore the appeal is dismissed and the respondent's equitable interest is protected.

Citation
(1909) 42 SCR 514
Parties
Defendant/appellant: Edmund C. Traves; Plaintiffs/respondents: Alexander Forrest and Others
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 October 1909
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (mines and Minerals) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Supreme Court of British Columbia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
After Acquired Chattels, Bill of Sale Registration, Equitable Interest in Ore, Priority of Registered Instruments, Notice (actual and Constructive)
Source Language
English
Mines and Minerals Property Law Equity Registration Law After Acquired Chattels Bill of Sale Registration Equitable Interest in Ore Priority of Registered Instruments +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 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edmund C. Traves

Defendant/appellant

Alexander Forrest and Others

Plaintiffs/respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (mines and Minerals) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Supreme Court of British Columbia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the agreement vested an equitable or legal interest in ore to be mined in the respondent
  2. 2 Whether that agreement was a 'bill of sale' requiring registration under the British Columbia Bills of Sale Act (5 Edw. VII c.8, 1905)
  3. 3 Whether a subsequent registered bill of sale held by the appellant prevailed over the respondent's interest or whether the appellant was a purchaser for value without notice

Ratio Decidendi

The agreement vested in the respondent an equitable interest in the ore to be mined which was not a 'bill of sale' requiring registration under the B.C. Bills of Sale Act; the appellant had notice (actual or constructive) and could not claim priority as a purchaser for value without notice, therefore the appeal is dismissed and the respondent's equitable interest is protected.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Judgment of the Supreme Court of British Columbia affirmed.