Lefebvre v. Aubry

Lefebvre v. Aubry

Where a partner acted as mandatary to collect book debts after dissolution and was entrusted to receive co-partners' shares, a co-partner may bring a direct action against that mandatary for an account or for money had and received; partition of partnership assets is governed by C.C. art.1898 applied to successions; therefore Aubry could sue Lefebvre directly and recover the share of collections subject to deductions for sums already paid and valid offsets, and an action pro socio was not required under the facts.

Citation
(1896) 26 SCR 602
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff (cross Actions): Joseph Lefebvre; Respondent / Defendant (cross Actions): Benjamin Aubry
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 December 1896
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (commercial/partnership) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada (appeal Side)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Court of Appeal confirmed except costs incurred on Aubry's inscription in review to be borne by Aubry alone; appellant ordered to pay costs of this Court.
Legal Topics
Partnership Dissolution, Partition of Assets, Mandate/accounting, Money Had and Received, Set Off/compensation, Costs
Source Language
English
Commercial Law Partnership Law Agency/mandate Civil Procedure Partnership Dissolution Partition of Assets Mandate/accounting Money Had and Received +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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Lefebvre

Appellant / Plaintiff (cross Actions)

Benjamin Aubry

Respondent / Defendant (cross Actions)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (commercial/partnership) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada (appeal Side)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a partner can sue his former partner directly for his share of book debts collected by that partner after dissolution
  2. 2 Whether the action must be pro socio (action by or against all partners) or may be a direct action for mandate/money had and received
  3. 3 Whether compensation/set-off between separate actions is permissible

Ratio Decidendi

Where a partner acted as mandatary to collect book debts after dissolution and was entrusted to receive co-partners' shares, a co-partner may bring a direct action against that mandatary for an account or for money had and received; partition of partnership assets is governed by C.C. art.1898 applied to successions; therefore Aubry could sue Lefebvre directly and recover the share of collections subject to deductions for sums already paid and valid offsets, and an action pro socio was not required under the facts.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Court of Appeal confirmed except costs incurred on Aubry's inscription in review to be borne by Aubry alone; appellant ordered to pay costs of this Court.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Judgment of the Court of Appeal confirmed except that costs incurred on Aubry's review inscription shall be borne by Aubry alone.