Deslongchamps-Dionne v. Peloquin & Dumais

Deslongchamps-Dionne v. Peloquin & Dumais

The appeal was dismissed because the obligation was a term obligation and nothing in the record showed the defendants had lost the benefit of the term, making the action premature; where the supporting deed shows the amount is not yet due the defendant need not plead prematurity, and subsequent deeds executed after institution cannot be admitted to change rights as they existed at institution.

Citation
[1962] SCR 285
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Georges Burton Deslongchamps; Defendant/respondent: Roland Peloquin; Defendant/respondent: Narcisse Dumais; Co Defendant (default): Gérard Breton
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 October 1961
Procedural Posture
Contract (debt/partnership Liability) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada; Motion to Adduce New Evidence Considered
Outcome
Appeal and motion to adduce new evidence dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Obligation With a Term, Loss of Benefit of Term, Prematurity of Action, Pleading Requirements, Admission of New Evidence on Appeal, Partnership Liability
Source Language
English
Contract Partnership Law Civil Procedure Evidence Obligation With a Term Loss of Benefit of Term Prematurity of Action Pleading Requirements +2 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Georges Burton Deslongchamps

Plaintiff/appellant

Roland Peloquin

Defendant/respondent

Narcisse Dumais

Defendant/respondent

Gérard Breton

Co Defendant (default)

Procedural Posture

Contract (debt/partnership Liability) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada; Motion to Adduce New Evidence Considered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether partners who joined after the debtor incurred the obligation lost the benefit of the term and became jointly and severally liable
  2. 2 Whether the action was premature because the amounts claimed were not yet due under a term obligation
  3. 3 Whether a defendant must specifically plead prematurity when the supporting deed shows the amount is not yet due

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the obligation was a term obligation and nothing in the record showed the defendants had lost the benefit of the term, making the action premature; where the supporting deed shows the amount is not yet due the defendant need not plead prematurity, and subsequent deeds executed after institution cannot be admitted to change rights as they existed at institution.

Court Disposition

Appeal and motion to adduce new evidence dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Motion to adduce new evidence dismissed with costs