London Loan & Savings Co. of Canada v. Osborn

London Loan & Savings Co. of Canada v. Osborn

The evidence established that the bonds were pledged as collateral for an additional advance on the mortgage and that the mortgage indebtedness was reduced below the $31,000 threshold (in fact extinguished) as contemplated by the receipt; Osborn was not estopped by the prior mechanics' lien proceedings because he was not a party and derived no benefit, and therefore the defendant was accountable for the value of the bonds it had disposed of.

Citation
[1928] SCR 451
Parties
Defendant (appellant): London Loan & Savings Company of Canada; Plaintiff (respondent): Frank E. Osborn; Plaintiff (respondent): Sarah Osborn; Plaintiff (respondent): Cecil A. Osborn (infant)
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 April 1928
Procedural Posture
Contract (pledge/pledging of Bonds; Mortgage) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Appellate Division and trial court affirmed.
Legal Topics
Pledge of Bonds, Mortgage Advance Vs Independent Loan, Estoppel in Pais, Mechanics Lien Proceedings, Rights of Surety, Redemption and Return of Collateral
Source Language
English
Contract Property Equity Security Interests Estoppel Pledge of Bonds Mortgage Advance Vs Independent Loan Estoppel in Pais +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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

London Loan & Savings Company of Canada

Defendant (appellant)

Frank E. Osborn

Plaintiff (respondent)

Sarah Osborn

Plaintiff (respondent)

Cecil A. Osborn (infant)

Plaintiff (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Contract (pledge/pledging of Bonds; Mortgage) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the $10,000 advance made when the bonds were pledged formed part of the mortgage indebtedness or was an independent loan secured solely by the bonds
  2. 2 Whether Frank Osborn was estopped by the prior mechanics’ lien judgment from claiming the bonds or their proceeds
  3. 3 Whether the co-plaintiffs (wife and infant) had independent rights to recover the bonds or only rights through Frank Osborn

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence established that the bonds were pledged as collateral for an additional advance on the mortgage and that the mortgage indebtedness was reduced below the $31,000 threshold (in fact extinguished) as contemplated by the receipt; Osborn was not estopped by the prior mechanics' lien proceedings because he was not a party and derived no benefit, and therefore the defendant was accountable for the value of the bonds it had disposed of.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Appellate Division and trial court affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario affirmed