Dorion v. Dorion

Dorion v. Dorion

The appeal was allowed because (1) the plaintiff could not isolate three specific sums for a separate action when the defendant's administration is indivisible and must be accounted for as a whole; (2) notarial settlements and discharges given by co‑legatees precluded the plaintiff from claiming further rendition as to matters covered by those settlements; (3) assignments executed before subsequent accretions did not transfer rights in property acquired later; and (4) the defendant had not become mandatary/negotiorum gestor such as to be liable to account to the plaintiff for sums he had already received.

Citation
(1892) 20 SCR 430
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Jean Baptiste Theophile Dorion; Respondent/plaintiff: Pierre Achille Adelard Dorion
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 April 1892
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Cross Appeal / Supreme Court of Canada on Appeal From the Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada (appeal Side)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Reddition of Account, Substitution Fideicommissaire, Curator Duties and Conflicts of Interest, Assignment of Rights, Indivisibility of Account Actions, Mandatory / Negotiorum Gestor, Construction and Effect of Testamentary Dispositions
Source Language
English
Estates Trusts Civil Procedure Fiduciary Law Reddition of Account Substitution Fideicommissaire Curator Duties and Conflicts of Interest Assignment of Rights +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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jean Baptiste Theophile Dorion

Appellant/defendant

Pierre Achille Adelard Dorion

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Appeal and Cross Appeal / Supreme Court of Canada on Appeal From the Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada (appeal Side)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff could sue for rendition of account of three specific sums distinct from a full accounting of administration
  2. 2 Whether notarial deed(s) of settlement discharging curator precluded further claims for account
  3. 3 Whether assignments executed by institutes prior to subsequent inheritances transferred subsequent accretions or rights

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because (1) the plaintiff could not isolate three specific sums for a separate action when the defendant's administration is indivisible and must be accounted for as a whole; (2) notarial settlements and discharges given by co‑legatees precluded the plaintiff from claiming further rendition as to matters covered by those settlements; (3) assignments executed before subsequent accretions did not transfer rights in property acquired later; and (4) the defendant had not become mandatary/negotiorum gestor such as to be liable to account to the plaintiff for sums he had already received.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal allowed and cross-appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment of Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada reversed in part and plaintiff's action dismissed as to the claims described in the opinion