Ritchie v. Jeffrey

Ritchie v. Jeffrey

Majority held the Horn order was effective as an equitable assignment of any moneys in the defendant's hands over which Horn had the right of disposition, but there was no evidence of a promise by the defendant to pay the amount out of the fund nor of conduct amounting to an estoppel that would make the defendant liable for the full $800; consequently the order could not be enforced against the owner as an equitable assignment for the full amount.

Citation
(1915) 52 SCR 243
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: John Ritchie; Respondent/defendant: Willard S. Jeffrey
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 November 1915
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court of Canada on Appeal From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Equitable Assignment, Mechanics' Lien, Estoppel, Priority of Liens, Enforcement of Assignments
Source Language
English
Contract Equity Property Construction Law Procedure Equitable Assignment Mechanics' Lien Estoppel +2 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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Ritchie

Appellant/plaintiff

Willard S. Jeffrey

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court of Canada on Appeal From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Horn's written order constituted an equitable assignment of money payable under the building contract
  2. 2 Whether the owner (Jeffrey) made a promise or acted so as to estop him from denying liability on the order
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's forbearance to file a mechanics' lien, induced by the owner, made the owner liable for the full order

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held the Horn order was effective as an equitable assignment of any moneys in the defendant's hands over which Horn had the right of disposition, but there was no evidence of a promise by the defendant to pay the amount out of the fund nor of conduct amounting to an estoppel that would make the defendant liable for the full $800; consequently the order could not be enforced against the owner as an equitable assignment for the full amount.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.