Huot v. Bienvenu

Huot v. Bienvenu

The Court held the clause was divisible: the stipulation of universal community fell within article 1411 and did not require registration, while a donation of propres would require registration; because the parties had only community property the clause operated as a community stipulation and, even if a donation portion existed, its invalidity for lack of registration would not nullify the community stipulation.

Citation
(1903) 33 SCR 370
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Elize Huot; Respondent / Defendant: Theophile Bienvenu
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 June 1903
Procedural Posture
Family Law Marriage Contract Dispute / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of King's Bench, Province of Quebec
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Court of King's Bench and Superior Court affirmed.
Legal Topics
Marriage Contract, Donation, Community Property, Registration Formalities, Divisibility of Contractual Clauses
Source Language
English
Family Law Civil Law Property Law Succession Marriage Contract Donation Community Property Registration Formalities +1 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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elize Huot

Appellant / Plaintiff

Theophile Bienvenu

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Family Law Marriage Contract Dispute / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of King's Bench, Province of Quebec

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the marriage contract clause constituted a donation requiring registration under the Civil Code (art. 1411)
  2. 2 Whether the clause is divisible so that a failure to register a donation of propres would nullify the entire clause or only the donation portion

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held the clause was divisible: the stipulation of universal community fell within article 1411 and did not require registration, while a donation of propres would require registration; because the parties had only community property the clause operated as a community stipulation and, even if a donation portion existed, its invalidity for lack of registration would not nullify the community stipulation.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Court of King's Bench and Superior Court affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Plaintiff's action dismissed insofar as it sought condemnation for an account