Peters v. Perras

Peters v. Perras

Majority held that the lower courts were not justified in rejecting uncontradicted testimony given under commission without prior notice per Browne v. Dunn, and that on the evidence the appellant acquired the note as a holder in due course for value without notice; therefore the appeal was allowed and the action maintained with costs.

Citation
(1909) 42 SCR 244
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Peters; Respondent / Defendant: Perras et al.
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 April 1909
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada
Outcome
Appeal allowed; action maintained for appellant with costs
Legal Topics
Promissory Note, Holder in Due Course, Fraud, Impeachment of Testimony, Notice of Imputations, Cross‑examination Duty (browne V. Dunn)
Source Language
English
Commercial Law Evidence Civil Procedure Negotiable Instruments Promissory Note Holder in Due Course Fraud Impeachment of Testimony +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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peters

Appellant / Plaintiff

Perras et al.

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether transferee was a holder in due course for value without notice
  2. 2 Whether suspicious circumstances (including overdue interest) put transferee on inquiry and defeated holder in due course status
  3. 3 Whether failure to give notice of imputations and to allow witness opportunity to explain required rejection of uncontradicted testimony under Browne v. Dunn

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held that the lower courts were not justified in rejecting uncontradicted testimony given under commission without prior notice per Browne v. Dunn, and that on the evidence the appellant acquired the note as a holder in due course for value without notice; therefore the appeal was allowed and the action maintained with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; action maintained for appellant with costs

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Action maintained with costs