Corporation du Canton de Chatham v. Liverpool & London & Globe Insurance Co.

Corporation du Canton de Chatham v. Liverpool & London & Globe Insurance Co.

The appeal was dismissed because the municipal claimant did not file the required sworn report within the three‑month period specified in the bond and failed to prove that the secretary‑treasurer was guilty of dishonesty or negligence; the evidence indicated the loss was attributable to a third party and, under the bond terms, the surety was not liable absent principal's liability.

Citation
[1959] SCR 47
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Corporation du Canton de Chatham; Defendant/appellant: The Liverpool & London & Globe Insurance Company Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 December 1958
Procedural Posture
Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From a Judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec / Final Appeal; Judgment on Merits (appeal Dismissed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Indemnity Bond, Notice Requirement, Misappropriation/theft, Principal's Liability, Negligence/standard of Proof
Source Language
English
Insurance Municipal Law Suretyship Contract Law Indemnity Bond Notice Requirement Misappropriation/theft Principal's Liability +1 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Corporation du Canton de Chatham

Plaintiff/respondent

The Liverpool & London & Globe Insurance Company Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From a Judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec / Final Appeal; Judgment on Merits (appeal Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant complied with the bond's condition requiring a sworn claim within three months of discovery
  2. 2 Whether the loss was of the type covered by the bond (i.e. attributable to the principal or to his default)
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff proved that the secretary‑treasurer was guilty of dishonesty or negligence making him liable under the bond

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the municipal claimant did not file the required sworn report within the three‑month period specified in the bond and failed to prove that the secretary‑treasurer was guilty of dishonesty or negligence; the evidence indicated the loss was attributable to a third party and, under the bond terms, the surety was not liable absent principal's liability.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs