Gillespie v. Stephens

Gillespie v. Stephens

Where a mandatary and mandator without legal disability come to an amicable settlement and the mandator accepts the accounts (including after audit), that settlement is valid even without vouchers; subsequent complaints about errors or omissions must be pursued by an action for reformation of accounts, not by...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
(1887) 14 SCR 709
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Robert Gillespie (devisee in trust and sole acting executor); Respondent / Defendant: Romeo H. Stephens
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 June 1887
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Concerning Rendition of Accounts (mandator/mandatary Agency) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada (appeal Side); Final Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Rendition of Accounts, Amicable Settlement of Accounts, Action En Redressement De Compte, Vouchers and Books, Acceptance and Estoppel
Source Language
english
Agency Civil Procedure Equity/accounting Rendition of Accounts Amicable Settlement of Accounts Action En Redressement De Compte Vouchers and Books Acceptance and Estoppel

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Gillespie (devisee in trust and sole acting executor)

Appellant / Plaintiff

Romeo H. Stephens

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Concerning Rendition of Accounts (mandator/mandatary Agency) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada (appeal Side); Final Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an amicable settlement and acceptance of accounts without vouchers bars the principal from obtaining a new complete account in court
  2. 2 Whether the proper remedy for discovered errors or omissions in accepted accounts is an action for reformation (redressement/reformation de compte) rather than an action demanding a new full account
  3. 3 Whether prior audit and written acceptance by the principal estops him from demanding further formal accounts

Ratio Decidendi

Where a mandatary and mandator without legal disability come to an amicable settlement and the mandator accepts the accounts (including after audit), that settlement is valid even without vouchers; subsequent complaints about errors or omissions must be pursued by an action for reformation of accounts, not by seeking a new full account order.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Reservation to respondent of recourse for sums not accounted for and for balances due after reformation of the accepted accounts