Lingle v. Knox Bros Ltd.

Lingle v. Knox Bros Ltd.

A contractual cross-demand that arises out of the same causes as the principal demand falls within art. 217 C.C.P. and must be adjudicated at the same time as the principal demand; therefore the Court of King's Bench decision directing concurrent adjudication was correct and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
[1925] SCR 659
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: W. F. Lingle and other; Defendant/respondent: Knox Brothers Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 October 1925
Procedural Posture
Action to Have Foreign Judgment Declared Executory / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of King's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; decision of the Court of King's Bench affirmed
Legal Topics
Cross Demand, Recognition of Foreign Judgment, Pleading, Code of Civil Procedure (quebec) Art. 217
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Conflict of Laws Contract Law Cross Demand Recognition of Foreign Judgment Pleading Code of Civil Procedure (quebec) Art. 217

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

Parties

W. F. Lingle and other

Plaintiff/appellant

Knox Brothers Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Action to Have Foreign Judgment Declared Executory / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of King's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a cross-demand based on alleged breaches of contract arises out of the same causes as an action founded on an exemplification of a foreign judgment under art. 217 C.C.P.
  2. 2 Whether arts. 211 and 212 C.C.P. govern procedure in this situation
  3. 3 Whether the cross-demand could have been pleaded as a defence under art. 212 C.C.P.

Ratio Decidendi

A contractual cross-demand that arises out of the same causes as the principal demand falls within art. 217 C.C.P. and must be adjudicated at the same time as the principal demand; therefore the Court of King's Bench decision directing concurrent adjudication was correct and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; decision of the Court of King's Bench affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment of the Court of King's Bench (Q.R. 38 K.B. 325) affirmed; parties to have adjudication of the principal demand and cross-demand at the same time as prescribed by art. 217 C.C.P.