Porter v. Hale

Porter v. Hale

No sufficient foundation was shown for admitting secondary evidence of the alleged written agreement (custodian abroad but no specific inquiries or independent investigation made), the parol evidence was inadequate and inconsistent to prove a binding conveyance (instrument not shown to be executed by both trustees), and delay/laches barred specific performance; therefore the appeal must be dismissed and the decree below affirmed.

Citation
(1894) 23 SCR 265
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Joseph B. Porter; Respondents / Defendants: Frederic H. Hale and others (including Irvine and Donald Fraser)
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 May 1894
Procedural Posture
Equity Appeal (specific Performance; Injunction) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Supreme Court of New Brunswick (final Hearing and Judgment)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of Supreme Court of New Brunswick affirmed
Legal Topics
Secondary Evidence, Specific Performance, Laches, Registration of Wills, Agency, Trustees and Co Trustees
Source Language
English
Equity Property Evidence Civil Procedure Secondary Evidence Specific Performance Laches Registration of Wills +2 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph B. Porter

Appellant / Plaintiff

Frederic H. Hale and others (including Irvine and Donald Fraser)

Respondents / Defendants

Procedural Posture

Equity Appeal (specific Performance; Injunction) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Supreme Court of New Brunswick (final Hearing and Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sufficient foundation was laid for admission of secondary evidence of a written agreement located out of jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether parol evidence sufficed to prove an agreement vesting title when the written instrument was not produced and not signed by both trustees
  3. 3 Whether delay (laches) barred equitable relief for specific performance

Ratio Decidendi

No sufficient foundation was shown for admitting secondary evidence of the alleged written agreement (custodian abroad but no specific inquiries or independent investigation made), the parol evidence was inadequate and inconsistent to prove a binding conveyance (instrument not shown to be executed by both trustees), and delay/laches barred specific performance; therefore the appeal must be dismissed and the decree below affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of Supreme Court of New Brunswick affirmed

Orders

  • Decree of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick reversing the equity judge affirmed
  • Bill dismissed with costs