Guertin v. Sansterre

Guertin v. Sansterre

The deed and share subscription constituted a single loan transaction obliging the borrower to repay principal and to pay interest and bonus equivalent to 12% per annum, which was not usurious under the law; voluntary liquidation caused classes to expire and empowered liquidators (under ch.32 ss.18,19,21 and company...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
(1897) 27 SCR 522
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Calixte Guertin; Respondents/defendants: Alexandre Sansterre et al. (executors of Alexandre Sansterre, deceased)
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 June 1897
Procedural Posture
Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada (appeal Side) / Final Judgment on Appeal (1897 06 07)
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs
Legal Topics
Participating Borrowers, Share Subscriptions, Class Expiration, Assessments and Deficits, Powers of Liquidators, Notice Requirements, Interest and Bonus (usury)
Source Language
english
Commercial Law Contract Law Insolvency and Liquidation Corporate Law (building Societies) Usury Law Participating Borrowers Share Subscriptions Class Expiration +4 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Calixte Guertin

Appellant/plaintiff

Alexandre Sansterre et al. (executors of Alexandre Sansterre, deceased)

Respondents/defendants

Procedural Posture

Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada (appeal Side) / Final Judgment on Appeal (1897 06 07)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the deed and share subscription constituted a loan obligation with interest and bonus equivalent to 12% lawful and recoverable
  2. 2 Whether voluntary liquidation caused classes to expire and whether liquidators had power to determine deficits and call additional payments
  3. 3 Whether the one-month notice in s.21 of 42 & 43 Vict. (Que.) ch.32 was required in the circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The deed and share subscription constituted a single loan transaction obliging the borrower to repay principal and to pay interest and bonus equivalent to 12% per annum, which was not usurious under the law; voluntary liquidation caused classes to expire and empowered liquidators (under ch.32 ss.18,19,21 and company by‑laws) to determine deficits and call additional instalments without the one‑month notice provision applying to that determination; accordingly the appellant was entitled to recover the unpaid balance of principal as determined by the liquidators and statutory interest at 6% on the balance from the dates specified, subject to prescribed deductions and prescription limits.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs

Orders

  • Judgment for the appellant for twenty-six monthly capital instalments totalling $910 (26 × $35)
  • Interest at 6% per annum on each instalment from its respective due date until paid