Simpson v. Tasker-Simpson Grain Co.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal holding that the evidence relied on to establish the alleged partnership was not sufficiently corroborated under the Alberta Evidence Act to sustain the counterclaim against the executrix; therefore the counterclaim could not defeat the appellant's claim and the judgment for the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- (1920) 60 SCR 647
- Parties
- Appellant, Plaintiff, Executrix of Deceased Husband: Simpson; Respondent, Defendant: Tasker-Simpson Grain Co.
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 6 April 1920
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Onus Probandi, Corroboration of Testimony, Claims Against Executor, Counterclaim, Pre Incorporation Transactions
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Simpson
Appellant, Plaintiff, Executrix of Deceased Husband
Tasker-Simpson Grain Co.
Respondent, Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether evidence of an alleged partnership between Tasker and the deceased husband was sufficiently corroborated under the Alberta Evidence Act to support a counterclaim against the executrix
- 2 Who bears the onus of proof for the existence of a partnership when one partner is deceased and the claim is against the deceased's estate
- 3 Whether the respondent's counterclaim based on an assignment from Tasker should defeat the appellant's undisputed claim for grain sold
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal holding that the evidence relied on to establish the alleged partnership was not sufficiently corroborated under the Alberta Evidence Act to sustain the counterclaim against the executrix; therefore the counterclaim could not defeat the appellant's claim and the judgment for the respondent was overturned.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed with costs
Orders
- Appeal allowed with costs
- Judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta reversed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Simpson v. Tasker-Simpson Grain Co. Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1920-04-06 Report (1920) 60 SCR 647 Judges Davies, Louis Henry; Idington, John; Duff, Lyman Poore; Anglin, Francis Alexander; Brodeur, Louis-Philippe; Mignault, Pierre-Basile On appeal from Alberta Subjects Evidence Decision Content Supreme Court of Canada Simpson v. Tasker-Simpson Grain Co., (1920) 60 S.C.R. 647 Date: 1920-04-06 Simpson; v. Tasker-simpson Grain Co. 1920: February 12, 13; 1920: April 6. Present:—Sir Louis Davies C.J. and Idington, Duff, Anglin, Brodeur and Mignault JJ. ON APPEAL FROM THE APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ALBERTA. Evidence—Partnership—Claim of surviving partner—Onus probandi. APPEAL from the judgment of the Supreme Court of Alberta, Appellate Division[1], affirming, on equal division, the judgment of Walsh J. at the trial and maintaining the counterclaim of the defendant, respondent. The appellant claimed $8,147.99 for grain sold and delivered to the respondent. This claim was not disputed by the respondent, but he fyled a counterclaim for a greater amount claimed to be due him by appellant's husband upon transactions made on behalf of an alleged partnership between Tasker and Simpson, before the incorporation of the respondent company, the claim having been transferred by Tasker to the respondent. The whole question was whether the evidence of Tasker as to the existence of such partnership was sufficiently corroborated to satisfy the "Alberta Evidence Act" in a case of a claim against the executor of the estate of a deceased person, as in the present case the appellant had been named executrix of her husband's estate. The trial judge found in favor of the respondent, and, the Appellate Division, upon an equal division of the court, affirmed this judgment. On the appeal by the plaintiff to the Supreme Court of Canada, the court, after hearing counsel for both parties, reserved judgment, and, at a subsequent date, allowed the appeal with costs. Appeal allowed with costs. H. P. O. Savary K.C. for the appellant. G. H. Ross K.C. for the respondent. [1] [1919] 3 W.W.R. 928.