Monarch Timber Exporters Ltd. v. Bell

Monarch Timber Exporters Ltd. v. Bell

The notice of default was valid because the defaults alleged in paragraphs 1 and 2 were established; since a notice is effective if any one alleged default is proved, the appointment of a receiver was not void and the appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[1964] SCR 375
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Monarch Timber Exporters Ltd.; Plaintiff/appellant: McCorkle Brothers Logging Ltd.; Plaintiff/appellant: Menlo Construction Co. Ltd.; Plaintiff/appellant: Rue Creek Service Co. Ltd.; Defendant/respondent: Ian H. Bell; Defendant/respondent: The Canada Trust Company; Defendant/respondent: MacMillan, Bloedel & Powell River Industries Ltd.
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 March 1964
Procedural Posture
Contract / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia; Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Notice of Default, Appointment of Receiver, Breach of Loan Agreement, Validity of Notice
Source Language
English
Contract Notice of Default Appointment of Receiver Breach of Loan Agreement Validity of Notice

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Monarch Timber Exporters Ltd.

Plaintiff/appellant

McCorkle Brothers Logging Ltd.

Plaintiff/appellant

Menlo Construction Co. Ltd.

Plaintiff/appellant

Rue Creek Service Co. Ltd.

Plaintiff/appellant

Ian H. Bell

Defendant/respondent

The Canada Trust Company

Defendant/respondent

MacMillan, Bloedel & Powell River Industries Ltd.

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Contract / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia; Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the notice of default was valid
  2. 2 Whether the appointment of a receiver was void
  3. 3 Whether proof of any one alleged default suffices to validate the notice

Ratio Decidendi

The notice of default was valid because the defaults alleged in paragraphs 1 and 2 were established; since a notice is effective if any one alleged default is proved, the appointment of a receiver was not void and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.