Baldocchi v. Spada

Baldocchi v. Spada

Majority held that on the evidence Garborino had no reason to suppose Spada was insolvent when he took the goods, and he satisfied the statutory onus of showing no intent to hinder, delay or defraud creditors; therefore the transfer was not a fraudulent preference and the appeal was dismissed.

Citation
(1907) 38 SCR 577
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: R. Baldocchi (on behalf of himself and other creditors of D. Spada); Respondent / Defendant: D. Spada; Respondent / Defendant: John Garborino
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 May 1907
Procedural Posture
Insolvency Creditor's Action Under Provincial Statute (preferential Assignment) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Preference, Security for Debt, Knowledge of Insolvency, Onus of Proof Under Provincial Statute, Preferential Assignment
Source Language
English
Bankruptcy and Insolvency Fraudulent Preference Security for Debt Knowledge of Insolvency Onus of Proof Under Provincial Statute Preferential Assignment

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

Parties

R. Baldocchi (on behalf of himself and other creditors of D. Spada)

Appellant / Plaintiff

D. Spada

Respondent / Defendant

John Garborino

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Insolvency Creditor's Action Under Provincial Statute (preferential Assignment) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the transfer of goods to Garborino constituted a fraudulent preference under R.S.O. 1897 c.147 s.2 ss.2-3
  2. 2 Whether Garborino knew or had reason to believe Spada was insolvent when the transaction occurred
  3. 3 Whether the defendant satisfied the onus placed upon him by the provincial statute to show absence of intent to hinder, delay or defraud creditors

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held that on the evidence Garborino had no reason to suppose Spada was insolvent when he took the goods, and he satisfied the statutory onus of showing no intent to hinder, delay or defraud creditors; therefore the transfer was not a fraudulent preference and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs