Ray v. Willson

Ray v. Willson

Where a signer delivers a signed blank paper to an agent as custodian subject to a condition that it not be used until a specified event, the signer did not intend it to become a negotiable instrument and sections 31 and 32 do not render him liable; if the agent had no authority (or the holder was put on inquiry), a holder in due course cannot enforce the note against the signer.

Citation
(1911) 45 SCR 401
Parties
Plaintiff Appellant: S.W. Ray; Plaintiff Appellant: C.W. Jarvis; Defendant Respondent: A.H. Willson
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 December 1911
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment Supreme Court of Canada
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Promissory Note, Signature on Blank Note, Authority to Fill Blanks, Holder in Due Course, Bills of Exchange Act Ss.31 32, Estoppel, Fraudulent Conversion
Source Language
English
Contract Negotiable Instruments Agency Law Commercial Law Promissory Note Signature on Blank Note Authority to Fill Blanks Holder in Due Course +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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S.W. Ray

Plaintiff Appellant

C.W. Jarvis

Plaintiff Appellant

A.H. Willson

Defendant Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment Supreme Court of Canada

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sections 31 and 32 of the Bills of Exchange Act protect a holder in due course where a signed blank form was delivered to an agent subject to a condition
  2. 2 Whether the agent had authority to fill in and issue the blank note or was merely a custodian
  3. 3 Whether the holder was bonâ fide and entitled to enforce the note

Ratio Decidendi

Where a signer delivers a signed blank paper to an agent as custodian subject to a condition that it not be used until a specified event, the signer did not intend it to become a negotiable instrument and sections 31 and 32 do not render him liable; if the agent had no authority (or the holder was put on inquiry), a holder in due course cannot enforce the note against the signer.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs to respondent