Pepper v. Prudential Trust Co.

Pepper v. Prudential Trust Co.

Majority held the appeal must be dismissed because the plaintiff executed the 1954 transfer with full knowledge and by way of compromise of the dispute, which affirmed the position and precluded rescission or damages for the 1951 transaction; the 1954 transfer was untainted and dispositive.

Citation
[1965] SCR 417
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: James T. Pepper; Respondent / Defendant: Prudential Trust Company Limited; Respondent / Defendant: Canadian Williston Minerals Ltd.; Third Party: Edward P. Lamar and Bueno Oils Ltd.
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 March 1965
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract / Tort (deceit) / Property (mineral Rights) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Court of Appeal judgment affirmed; Spence J. dissenting in part
Legal Topics
Non Est Factum, Rescission, Deceit (fraud), Agency Liability, Transfer of Mineral Rights, Compromise / Settlement, Estoppel, Registration Under Land Titles Act
Source Language
English
Contract Property Tort Equity Agency Non Est Factum Rescission Deceit (fraud) +5 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 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James T. Pepper

Appellant / Plaintiff

Prudential Trust Company Limited

Respondent / Defendant

Canadian Williston Minerals Ltd.

Respondent / Defendant

Edward P. Lamar and Bueno Oils Ltd.

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract / Tort (deceit) / Property (mineral Rights) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1951 documents were void (non est factum) or voidable for fraud
  2. 2 Whether execution of the 1954 transfer with full knowledge constituted affirmation/compromise barring rescission and damages
  3. 3 Whether Prudential Trust is liable for deceit of Macdonald as principal for agent

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held the appeal must be dismissed because the plaintiff executed the 1954 transfer with full knowledge and by way of compromise of the dispute, which affirmed the position and precluded rescission or damages for the 1951 transaction; the 1954 transfer was untainted and dispositive.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Court of Appeal judgment affirmed; Spence J. dissenting in part

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment of the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan affirmed