Wilson v. Land Security Co.

Wilson v. Land Security Co.

The dealings between the vendor and the assignee did not constitute a novation or fully release the original vendee; however, having notice of the assignment the vendor was bound not to impair the vendee’s security and must be treated as having received the proper proportion of purchase money and arrears of interest on each release; apportionment should be calculated by dividing the deferred instalments by the total number of lots.

Citation
(1896) 26 SCR 149
Parties
Appellant/defendant: William D. Wilson; Respondent/plaintiff: The Land Security Company; Assignee/third Party: Henderson
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 March 1896
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal — Contract for Sale of Land / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Novation, Assignment, Discharge of Surety, Giving Time, Apportionment of Payments, Release of Land, Arrears of Interest
Source Language
English
Contract Property Suretyship Equity Novation Assignment Discharge of Surety Giving Time +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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William D. Wilson

Appellant/defendant

The Land Security Company

Respondent/plaintiff

Henderson

Assignee/third Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal — Contract for Sale of Land / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether assignment and subsequent dealings effected a novation substituting the assignee as debtor in place of the original vendee
  2. 2 Whether the vendor’s dealings with the assignee released the original vendee from liability as surety
  3. 3 Whether the vendor after notice must deal so as not to prejudice the vendee’s security

Ratio Decidendi

The dealings between the vendor and the assignee did not constitute a novation or fully release the original vendee; however, having notice of the assignment the vendor was bound not to impair the vendee’s security and must be treated as having received the proper proportion of purchase money and arrears of interest on each release; apportionment should be calculated by dividing the deferred instalments by the total number of lots.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondents.
  • Defendant (Wilson) not discharged by novation; company bound to treat transfers as having yielded the full amount due for whole‑lot releases and to treat arrears of interest at time of transfers as received.