Hochberger v. Rittenberg

Hochberger v. Rittenberg

A secret prior arrangement by which one creditor obtains security or more favourable payment terms in the context of a collective extension/composition is void as a fraud on the other creditors and contrary to public order; consequently indorsements/notes given to secure such a secret preference are unenforceable,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
(1916) 54 SCR 480
Parties
Appellants: Isidore Hochberger and Others; Respondent: Moses Rittenberg
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 December 1916
Procedural Posture
Contract / 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, Quebec affirmed
Legal Topics
Composition/extension of Time, Preference and Security, Fraud on Creditors, Lex Loci (choice of Law), Indorsement of Promissory Notes
Source Language
english
Contract Insolvency Conflict of Laws Public Order Composition/extension of Time Preference and Security Fraud on Creditors Lex Loci (choice of Law) +1 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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Isidore Hochberger and Others

Appellants

Moses Rittenberg

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a secret prior arrangement securing one creditor during a collective extension of time is void as a fraud on other creditors and public order
  2. 2 Whether indorsements/notes given to secure such secret advantage are enforceable
  3. 3 Which jurisdiction's law governs the validity of the transaction (Ontario vs Quebec)

Ratio Decidendi

A secret prior arrangement by which one creditor obtains security or more favourable payment terms in the context of a collective extension/composition is void as a fraud on the other creditors and contrary to public order; consequently indorsements/notes given to secure such a secret preference are unenforceable, and the validity of the transaction is governed by the law of the place where it was made (Ontario here).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Court of King's Bench, Quebec affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment of the Court of King's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec (Q.R. 25 K.B. 421) affirmed