Lady Davis v. The Royal Trust Co. Et al.

Lady Davis v. The Royal Trust Co. Et al.

The judgment dismissing the exception to the form was interlocutory, did not determine any substantive right in whole or in part, and therefore was not a "final judgment" within the meaning of the Supreme Court Act; the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and the motion to quash must be granted.

Citation
[1932] SCR 203
Parties
Appellant / Defendant / Co‑executor: Dame Eleanor Curran (Lady Davis); Respondents / Plaintiffs / Trustees: The Royal Trust Company and Others; Mise‑en‑cause: Dame Henriette Marie Meyer
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 March 1932
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Motion to Quash Appeal for Want of Jurisdiction From Judgment Dismissing Exception to the Form (interlocutory)
Outcome
Motion to quash appeal granted for want of jurisdiction; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Judgment, Exception to the Form, Final Judgment, Jurisdiction, Demurrer Vs Exception, Appointment of Trustees
Source Language
English
Appeal Civil Procedure Trusts Succession Interlocutory Judgment Exception to the Form Final Judgment Jurisdiction +2 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dame Eleanor Curran (Lady Davis)

Appellant / Defendant / Co‑executor

The Royal Trust Company and Others

Respondents / Plaintiffs / Trustees

Dame Henriette Marie Meyer

Mise‑en‑cause

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Motion to Quash Appeal for Want of Jurisdiction From Judgment Dismissing Exception to the Form (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a judgment dismissing an exception to the form is a "final judgment" under the Supreme Court Act ss.2(e) and 36 and therefore appealable to the Supreme Court of Canada
  2. 2 Whether the appellant could appeal without the concurrence of her co‑executors

Ratio Decidendi

The judgment dismissing the exception to the form was interlocutory, did not determine any substantive right in whole or in part, and therefore was not a "final judgment" within the meaning of the Supreme Court Act; the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and the motion to quash must be granted.

Court Disposition

Motion to quash appeal granted for want of jurisdiction; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Motion to quash the appeal granted with costs
  • No opinion expressed on the remaining question (concurrence of co‑executors)