Canadian Car and Foundry Co. v. Bird
The judgment directing an account in an action en reddition de compte is not a "final judgment" within the meaning of s.2(e) of the Supreme Court Act as it stood prior to the 1920 amendment; therefore the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction and the appeal must be quashed with costs.
- Citation
- (1922) 64 SCR 257
- Parties
- Appellant / Defendant: Canadian Car and Foundry Company; Respondent / Plaintiff: J. Philip Bird
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 17 June 1922
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Motion to Quash Appeal (on Appeal From Court of King's Bench, Quebec)
- Outcome
- Appeal quashed for want of jurisdiction
- Legal Topics
- Final Judgment, Interlocutory Order, Reddition De Compte, Jurisdiction of Supreme Court
- Source Language
- English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Canadian Car and Foundry Company
Appellant / Defendant
J. Philip Bird
Respondent / Plaintiff
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Motion to Quash Appeal (on Appeal From Court of King's Bench, Quebec)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a judgment directing an account in an action en reddition de compte is a "final judgment" within s.2(e) of the Supreme Court Act (pre-1920)
- 2 Whether the Supreme Court of Canada had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from such a judgment
Ratio Decidendi
The judgment directing an account in an action en reddition de compte is not a "final judgment" within the meaning of s.2(e) of the Supreme Court Act as it stood prior to the 1920 amendment; therefore the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction and the appeal must be quashed with costs.
Court Disposition
Appeal quashed for want of jurisdiction
Orders
- Motion to quash granted with costs
- Appeal quashed with costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment