Norwich v. Union Fire Insurance Soc. Ltd. v. La Banque Canadienne Nationale

Norwich v. Union Fire Insurance Soc. Ltd. v. La Banque Canadienne Nationale

Appeal No. 406 was quashed for lack of jurisdiction because the insurer’s claimed interest in the post-dated cheque (which was countermanded) did not meet the Court’s value threshold; Appeal No. 407 was dismissed because the insurer, on the pleadings and evidence, was not entitled to revendicate the cheques from the bank — the cheques were the city’s, the bank paid out of the city’s funds and acted in good faith, and any remedy against the bank is a claim for damages or an accounting between bank and city rather than the form of action the insurer chose.

Citation
[1934] SCR 596
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Ltd.; Respondent/defendant: La Banque Canadienne Nationale; Mis En Cause/third Party: The City of Chicoutimi and Others
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 April 1934
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of King’s Bench (appeal Side), Province of Quebec (two Appeals, Nos. 406 and 407)
Outcome
Appeal No. 406 quashed with costs; Appeal No. 407 dismissed with costs; judgments of the Court of King’s Bench and Superior Court affirmed.
Legal Topics
Revendication, Cheques and Endorsements, Authority of Agent, Conversion, Damages, Jurisdictional Threshold for Appeals, Bills of Exchange Act Interpretation
Source Language
English
Banking Law Agency Law Insurance Law Civil Procedure Commercial Law Revendication Cheques and Endorsements Authority of Agent +4 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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Ltd.

Appellant/plaintiff

La Banque Canadienne Nationale

Respondent/defendant

The City of Chicoutimi and Others

Mis En Cause/third Party

Procedural Posture

Appeal / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of King’s Bench (appeal Side), Province of Quebec (two Appeals, Nos. 406 and 407)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal in No. 406 was competent given the value in controversy
  2. 2 Whether the insurer could revendicate cheques from the bank where an agent endorsed and deposited them to his personal account
  3. 3 Whether the agent had authority to endorse and collect cheques on behalf of the insurer

Ratio Decidendi

Appeal No. 406 was quashed for lack of jurisdiction because the insurer’s claimed interest in the post-dated cheque (which was countermanded) did not meet the Court’s value threshold; Appeal No. 407 was dismissed because the insurer, on the pleadings and evidence, was not entitled to revendicate the cheques from the bank — the cheques were the city’s, the bank paid out of the city’s funds and acted in good faith, and any remedy against the bank is a claim for damages or an accounting between bank and city rather than the form of action the insurer chose.

Court Disposition

Appeal No. 406 quashed with costs; Appeal No. 407 dismissed with costs; judgments of the Court of King’s Bench and Superior Court affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal No. 406 quashed with costs
  • Appeal No. 407 dismissed with costs