Craig v. Samuel

Craig v. Samuel

The notes were issued as consideration for Craig's purchase of a half interest in a patent; because they did not bear the mandatory words 'given for a patent right' across their face as required by s.30(4)(D) of the Bills of Exchange Act, they were void and the plaintiffs could not enforce them against Craig.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
(1895) 24 SCR 278
Parties
Appellant: J.T. Craig; Respondent: M. & L. Samuel, Benjamin & Co.
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 January 1895
Procedural Posture
Contract Appeal (promissory Note) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs; Court of Appeal judgment reversed and Divisional Court judgment in favour of defendant restored
Legal Topics
Promissory Note, Consideration, Transfer of Patent Right, Statutory Formalities for Negotiable Instruments, Bills of Exchange Act S.30(4)(d), Holder in Due Course Exception
Source Language
english
Contract Commercial Law Negotiable Instruments Intellectual Property (patent) Promissory Note Consideration Transfer of Patent Right Statutory Formalities for Negotiable Instruments +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J.T. Craig

Appellant

M. & L. Samuel, Benjamin & Co.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contract Appeal (promissory Note) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the promissory notes were given as purchase money for a half interest in a patent and thus fell within s.30(4)(D) of the Bills of Exchange Act
  2. 2 Whether there was independent consideration for the notes apart from the patent transfer
  3. 3 Whether the absence of the words 'given for a patent right' across the face of the notes rendered them void

Ratio Decidendi

The notes were issued as consideration for Craig's purchase of a half interest in a patent; because they did not bear the mandatory words 'given for a patent right' across their face as required by s.30(4)(D) of the Bills of Exchange Act, they were void and the plaintiffs could not enforce them against Craig.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs; Court of Appeal judgment reversed and Divisional Court judgment in favour of defendant restored

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario reversed