Johnston v. Channell

Johnston v. Channell

Where transactions by a married woman are null for lack of marital authorization, securities deposited as collateral are treated as a simple deposit; under Civil Code art.1808 the depository cannot demand proof of ownership from the depositor and the broker lacked the existing and actual interest required by art.183 to raise third-party title, therefore pleadings alleging non-ownership were irrelevant and rightly struck out.

Citation
[1935] SCR 296
Parties
Defendants/appellants: Stanley Johnston et al.; Plaintiffs/respondents: Dame Vera Channell et vir
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 April 1935
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Court of King's Bench, Province of Quebec to Supreme Court of Canada (civil Securities Action) / On Appeal; Final Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of Court of King's Bench and Superior Court affirmed
Legal Topics
Marital Authorization, Nullity of Transactions, Pledge (gage) Vs Deposit, Bailee Obligations, Ownership Evidence, Inscription in Law, Interest to Plead Third Party Rights
Source Language
English
Securities Family Law Property Civil Procedure Marital Authorization Nullity of Transactions Pledge (gage) Vs Deposit Bailee Obligations +3 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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stanley Johnston et al.

Defendants/appellants

Dame Vera Channell et vir

Plaintiffs/respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Court of King's Bench, Province of Quebec to Supreme Court of Canada (civil Securities Action) / On Appeal; Final Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a broker may plead that securities deposited as collateral were not the property of a married woman because acquired or borrowed without her husband's authorization
  2. 2 Whether deposited securities become a simple deposit when the underlying contract is null for lack of marital authorization
  3. 3 Whether the broker had the existing and actual interest required by Civil Code art.183 to raise third-party title, or even an eventual interest under art.77 C.P.C.

Ratio Decidendi

Where transactions by a married woman are null for lack of marital authorization, securities deposited as collateral are treated as a simple deposit; under Civil Code art.1808 the depository cannot demand proof of ownership from the depositor and the broker lacked the existing and actual interest required by art.183 to raise third-party title, therefore pleadings alleging non-ownership were irrelevant and rightly struck out.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of Court of King's Bench and Superior Court affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Affirmation of Superior Court and Court of King's Bench order deleting paragraphs 23–26 of the defendants' plea