Pulos v. Kladis and Lerikos
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the appellant failed to prove that the one‑third interest recorded in the intervenant's name was in fact the husband's beneficial property; documentary title stood and parol evidence submitted by the appellant was insufficient to overturn that title or permit...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- (1919) 59 SCR 688
- Parties
- Appellant/plaintiff: Pulos; Intervenant/respondent (legal Title Holder): Mary Kladis; Respondent: Lerikos; Debtor/third Party Alleged Beneficial Owner: Denis Lazanis
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 17 June 1919
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Concerning Debt Recovery and Alleged Sham Transfer of Partnership Interest (partnership/contract) / Supreme Court of Canada — Final Disposition on Appeal From Court of King's Bench (quebec)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Parol Evidence, Sham/beneficial Ownership, Intervention, Creditor Recovery Against Alleged Fraudulent Conveyance
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Pulos
Appellant/plaintiff
Mary Kladis
Intervenant/respondent (legal Title Holder)
Lerikos
Respondent
Denis Lazanis
Debtor/third Party Alleged Beneficial Owner
Procedural Posture
Appeal Concerning Debt Recovery and Alleged Sham Transfer of Partnership Interest (partnership/contract) / Supreme Court of Canada — Final Disposition on Appeal From Court of King's Bench (quebec)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the one‑third interest held in the name of the wife was in truth the property of her husband and therefore subject to the husband's creditors
- 2 Whether parol evidence could be used to defeat the documentary legal title
- 3 Whether the intervenant's claim to the interest could be dismissed and the creditor's claim sustained
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the appellant failed to prove that the one‑third interest recorded in the intervenant's name was in fact the husband's beneficial property; documentary title stood and parol evidence submitted by the appellant was insufficient to overturn that title or permit attachment by the creditor.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed with costs
- Judgment of the Court of King's Bench (Quebec) restored
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Pulos v. Kladis and Lerikos Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1919-06-17 Report (1919) 59 SCR 688 Judges Davies, Louis Henry; Idington, John; Duff, Lyman Poore; Brodeur, Louis-Philippe; Mignault, Pierre-Basile On appeal from Quebec Subjects Contract Decision Content Supreme Court of Canada Pulos v. Kladis and Lerikos, (1919) 59 S.C.R. 688 Date: 1919-06-17 Pulos v. Kladis and Lerikos. 1919: May 22, 23; 1919: June 17. Present: Sir Louis Davies C.J. and Idington, Duff, Brodeur and Mignault JJ. ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH, APPEAL SIDE, PROVINCE OF QUEBEC. Partnerships-Parol evidence—Husband and wife. APPEAL from the judgment of the Court of King's Bench, appeal side[1], reversing the judgment of the trial court and dismissing the intervention fyled by the appellant. The appellant Pulos sought to recover payment of a debt due to him by Denis Lazanis, the husband of the intervenant Mary Kladis, out of the one-third interest in a theatrical business carried on in Maisonneuve, which, according to the documentary evidence produced, belonged to Mary Kladis, but which appellant alleged was in truth the property of her husband using her name to shield him from his creditors. The trial judge maintained the allegations of the appellant and dismissed the intervention fyled by Mary Kladis. The Court of King's Bench reversed this judgment. The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, which, after hearing counsel on behalf of both parties, reserved judgment, and, at a subsequent date, dismissed the appeal. Appeal dismissed with costs. Aimé Geoffrion K.C. and Thomas Walsh K.C. for the appellant. J. O. Lacroix K.C. for the respondent, Lerikos. O. Sénécal K.C. for the respondent, Kladis. [1] 24 R.L.N.S. 482.