Consolidated Distilleries Ltd. v. The King

Consolidated Distilleries Ltd. v. The King

The appellants bore the burden to prove that the bond's conditions (exportation and entry at St. John's or accounting to the Collector) were fulfilled; they failed to prove delivery/entry and failed to adduce proof within the 90‑day period or to account to the Collector's satisfaction, therefore liability under the bond was properly imposed.

Citation
[1931] SCR 283
Parties
Appellant Defendant: Consolidated Distilleries Limited; Appellant Defendant: Another Defendant; Respondent Plaintiff: His Majesty The King
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 May 1930
Procedural Posture
Action on Bond Under Inland Revenue Act / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Exchequer Court of Canada
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Exchequer Court upholding liability under the bond affirmed.
Legal Topics
Bond Condition, Exportation Proof, Burden of Proof, Warehousing Regulations, Substitution/fraud, Liability Under Bond
Source Language
English
Revenue Law Customs Contract Shipping Evidence Bond Condition Exportation Proof Burden of Proof +3 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Consolidated Distilleries Limited

Appellant Defendant

Another Defendant

Appellant Defendant

His Majesty The King

Respondent Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Action on Bond Under Inland Revenue Act / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Exchequer Court of Canada

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who bears burden of proof to show fulfilment of bond conditions
  2. 2 Whether the goods were exported and entered at St. John's, Newfoundland
  3. 3 Whether proof of exportation and entry was adduced to the Collector within 90 days

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants bore the burden to prove that the bond's conditions (exportation and entry at St. John's or accounting to the Collector) were fulfilled; they failed to prove delivery/entry and failed to adduce proof within the 90‑day period or to account to the Collector's satisfaction, therefore liability under the bond was properly imposed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Exchequer Court upholding liability under the bond affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment for respondent upholding liability under the bond (bond amount plus interest)