Ripstein v. Trower & Sons. Ltd.

Ripstein v. Trower & Sons. Ltd.

Majority held that the cause of action was an accounting of the net commissions of the Canadian office situated in Montreal and that all essential facts giving rise to the action arose in the district of Montreal; accordingly Quebec courts had jurisdiction under article 94(3) C.C.P. and the declinatory exception by the foreign company should have been dismissed.

Citation
[1942] SCR 107
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Hyman M. Ripstein; Defendant/respondent: Trower & Sons Limited; Co Defendant: Thomas S. Gillespie; Co Defendant: Thomas Redpath
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 February 1941
Procedural Posture
Contract / Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs; declinatory exception dismissed; record remitted to Superior Court for trial on the merits
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Declinatory Exception, Accounting, Partnership Vs Agency, Service by Publication
Source Language
English
Contract Civil Procedure Private International Law Jurisdiction Declinatory Exception Accounting Partnership Vs Agency Service by Publication

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hyman M. Ripstein

Plaintiff/appellant

Trower & Sons Limited

Defendant/respondent

Thomas S. Gillespie

Co Defendant

Thomas Redpath

Co Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contract / Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Quebec courts had jurisdiction over an English corporation sued by service by publication
  2. 2 Whether the whole cause of action arose in the district of Montreal under article 94(3) C.C.P.
  3. 3 Whether article 103 C.C.P. permits joining a defendant domiciled outside Quebec where co-defendants reside in Quebec

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held that the cause of action was an accounting of the net commissions of the Canadian office situated in Montreal and that all essential facts giving rise to the action arose in the district of Montreal; accordingly Quebec courts had jurisdiction under article 94(3) C.C.P. and the declinatory exception by the foreign company should have been dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs; declinatory exception dismissed; record remitted to Superior Court for trial on the merits

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs throughout
  • Declinatory exception of respondent dismissed