Molson Bank v. Halter

Molson Bank v. Halter

Majority (Strong, Taschereau, Gwynne JJ.) held s.2's phrase "or which has such effect" is confined to the immediately preceding preference clause; the mortgage was not void because the transferees were trustees/cestuis (not ordinary creditors) and the restoration/security was made under pressure (fear of penal consequences) and thus not a voluntary preference; appeal dismissed with costs.

Citation
(1890) 18 SCR 88
Parties
Appellant (plaintiff): Molson Bank; Respondent (defendant): Edward Halter; Respondent (defendant): Moses E. Wismer
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 December 1890
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada (final Judgment)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Preference, Statutory Construction, Intent Versus Effect, Voluntary Preference, Breach of Trust, Restitution
Source Language
English
Insolvency Trusts and Trustees Property Law Bankruptcy Criminal Law (misappropriation) Fraudulent Preference Statutory Construction Intent Versus Effect +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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Molson Bank

Appellant (plaintiff)

Edward Halter

Respondent (defendant)

Moses E. Wismer

Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada (final Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Construction of R.S.O. (1887) c.124 s.2 and scope of phrase "or which has such effect"
  2. 2 Whether a mortgage by a defaulting trustee to co-executors is void as a fraudulent preference under the statute
  3. 3 Whether beneficiaries/co-executors are 'creditors' for purposes of the statute

Ratio Decidendi

Majority (Strong, Taschereau, Gwynne JJ.) held s.2's phrase "or which has such effect" is confined to the immediately preceding preference clause; the mortgage was not void because the transferees were trustees/cestuis (not ordinary creditors) and the restoration/security was made under pressure (fear of penal consequences) and thus not a voluntary preference; appeal dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs