Currie v. Rural Municipality of Wreford and Lasher

Currie v. Rural Municipality of Wreford and Lasher

Where an agent signs a contract with an indication of official capacity, the signature raises a presumption the agent acted for the municipal principal and not personally; liability lies with the municipality if the contract was its contract, but absent evidence of personal undertaking the agent is not personally...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
(1918) 59 SCR 674
Parties
Appellant (plaintiff): Currie; Respondent (cross Appellant Municipality): Rural Municipality of Wreford; Respondent (councillor): J. T. Lasher
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 November 1918
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Contract/agency / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From the Supreme Court of Saskatchewan
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; Cross-appeal allowed with costs.
Legal Topics
Principal and Agent, Authority by Office Signature, Personal Liability of Agents, Municipal Corporate Liability
Source Language
english
Agency Municipal Law Contract Law Principal and Agent Authority by Office Signature Personal Liability of Agents Municipal Corporate Liability

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Currie

Appellant (plaintiff)

Rural Municipality of Wreford

Respondent (cross Appellant Municipality)

J. T. Lasher

Respondent (councillor)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Contract/agency / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From the Supreme Court of Saskatchewan

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Rural Municipality was bound by a written contract signed by a councillor
  2. 2 Whether the councillor who signed his name followed by 'councilman' was personally liable on the contract

Ratio Decidendi

Where an agent signs a contract with an indication of official capacity, the signature raises a presumption the agent acted for the municipal principal and not personally; liability lies with the municipality if the contract was its contract, but absent evidence of personal undertaking the agent is not personally liable. Applying this, the Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against Lasher and allowed the cross-appeal against the municipality in part.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; Cross-appeal allowed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Cross-appeal allowed with costs