Richards v. Baker
- Citation
- (1918) 59 SCR 656
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 10 October 1918
- Posture
- Civil Appeal / On Appeal From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 10 October 1918
- Posture
- Civil Appeal / On Appeal From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Where goods were seized and written notice of an assignment for the benefit of creditors was served, the court affirmed that the sheriff could not retain possession by insisting on poundage; the trial judge's order directing the sheriff to withdraw was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs
Orders
- Appeal dismissed with costs.
- Judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia affirmed.
- Order directing the sheriff to withdraw from possession.
02
Material facts
Parties
Richards
Respondent (plaintiff) Counsel: BethuneBaker
Appellant (defendant) Counsel: Chrysler K.C.Amounts and remedies
- Report Page: 656
03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Appeal / On Appeal From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
Whether a sheriff is entitled to poundage after seizure where written notice of an assignment for the benefit of creditors has been served and the sheriff refuses to withdraw
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Appellant (defendant) argued the sheriff was entitled to charge poundage and could refuse to withdraw possession of the goods until his bill including poundage was paid.
- Respondent
- Respondent (plaintiff) argued that upon service of written notice of the assignment under the Creditors' Trust Deeds Act the sheriff could not retain the goods or demand poundage and should withdraw without payment.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Common law practice and fees regime
A sheriff may claim fees (poundage) for services performed in effecting a seizure.
- 02
Creditors' Trust Deeds Act
Service of a written assignment for the benefit of creditors affects third‑party seizure rights and may preclude enforcement steps inconsistent with the assignment.
- 03
Inherent judicial powers demonstrated by trial court order (Clement J.)
A court has authority to order a sheriff to withdraw from possession notwithstanding the sheriff's claim for fees.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Where goods were seized and written notice of an assignment for the benefit of creditors was served, the court affirmed that the sheriff could not retain possession by insisting on poundage; the trial judge's order directing the sheriff to withdraw was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs
- Appeal dismissed with costs.
- Judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia affirmed.
- Order directing the sheriff to withdraw from possession.
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 10 October 1918
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Supreme Court of Canada
Judgment· 10 October 1918
Richards v. Baker Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1918-10-10 Report (1918) 59 SCR 656 Judges Fitzpatrick, Charles; Davies, Louis Henry; Idington, John; Anglin, Francis Alexander; Brodeur, Louis-Philippe On appeal from British Columbia Subjects Action Decision Content Supreme Court of Canada Richards v. Baker, (1918) 59 S.C.R. 656 Date: 1918-10-10 Richards v. Baker. 1918: October 10. Present: Sir Charles Fitzpatrick C.J. and Davies, Idington, Anglin and Brodeur JJ. ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA. Practice and procedure—Seizure—Assignment—Notice to sheriff—Refusal to withdraw—Poundage. APPEAL from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia[1], affirming the judgment of the trial judge, Clement J. and maintaining the respondent's (plaintiff's) action. The sheriff of Victoria seized certain goods on the premises of one Neston, and on the same day Neston made an assignment for the benefit of his creditors under the "Creditors' Trust Deeds Act." Notice in writing of this assignment was served upon the sheriff shortly after the seizure. The sheriff agreed to withdraw on payment of his bill including an item for poundage, which item the respondent refused to pay. The sheriff remained in possession until ordered to withdraw by an order of Clement J. The question in issue was whether or not the sheriff was entitled to poundage. The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada which, after hearing counsel on its behalf, and without calling on counsel for the respondent, dismissed the appeal. Appeal dismissed with costs. Chrysler K.C. for the appellant. Bethune for the respondent. [1] 40 D.L.R. 351; [1918] 2 W.W.R. 902.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.