Consumers Cordage Co. v. Connolly

Consumers Cordage Co. v. Connolly

Majority held the evidence established a conspiracy/illegal combination affecting public interests; although plaintiffs could recover the advances (repetition de l'indu) to be restored to their prior position, no interest before action could be allowed on those advances; courts may and must judicially notice laws of public order ex proprio motu; absent proof foreign law differs, presume similarity to forum law; accordingly the appeal was allowed in part by reducing the award (deducting pre-action interest) and confirming dismissal of the incidental demand enforcing the illegal contract.

Citation
(1901) 31 SCR 244
Parties
Defendant and Incidental Plaintiff (appellant): Consumers Cordage Company; Plaintiffs and Incidental Defendants (respondents): Nicholas K. Connolly and Michael Connolly
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 March 1901
Procedural Posture
Contract / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Superior Court (sitting in Review) — Judgment on the Merits
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part.
Legal Topics
Illegal Consideration, Repetition De L'indu/condictio Indebiti, Interest on Unlawful Payments, Judicial Notice of Public Order/foreign Law, Parol Evidence and Admissibility, Agency/prête Nom, Breach of Contract/incidental Demand
Source Language
English
Contract Law Restitution Competition and Monopoly Law Criminal/conspiracy Law Civil Procedure Conflict of Laws Illegal Consideration Repetition De L'indu/condictio Indebiti +5 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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Consumers Cordage Company

Defendant and Incidental Plaintiff (appellant)

Nicholas K. Connolly and Michael Connolly

Plaintiffs and Incidental Defendants (respondents)

Procedural Posture

Contract / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Superior Court (sitting in Review) — Judgment on the Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the transactions constituted an illegal conspiracy/combination affecting public interests
  2. 2 Whether the court may notice illegality ex proprio motu though not pleaded
  3. 3 Whether plaintiffs can recover advances made in the course of an illegal transaction and whether interest is recoverable prior to action

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held the evidence established a conspiracy/illegal combination affecting public interests; although plaintiffs could recover the advances (repetition de l'indu) to be restored to their prior position, no interest before action could be allowed on those advances; courts may and must judicially notice laws of public order ex proprio motu; absent proof foreign law differs, presume similarity to forum law; accordingly the appeal was allowed in part by reducing the award (deducting pre-action interest) and confirming dismissal of the incidental demand enforcing the illegal contract.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part.

Orders

  • Judgment reduced; appellant Consumers Cordage Company condemned to pay respondents $18,044.86 with interest from 23 December 1896 and costs in all courts.
  • All pre-action interest claimed by plaintiffs deducted; pre-action interest of $4,339.62 disallowed.