Seibel v. Dwyer Elevator Co.
- Citation
- [1924] SCR 530
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 14 October 1924
- Posture
- Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 14 October 1924
- Posture
- Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Majority held that s.3 of the Crop Payments Act did not protect the vendor because the agreement permitted the vendor's share of the crop to be applied toward payments other than the land price, and that the appellant had not validly seized the crop; therefore the appeal failed and lower courts' judgments were affirmed.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan affirmed.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed with costs.
- Judgment of the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan affirmed.
02
Material facts
Parties
Seibel
Appellant; Vendor of Land Counsel: F. W. TurnbullDwyer Elevator Company
Respondent; Purchaser/holder of Grain Counsel: H. Fisher K.C.; S. Clark03
Procedural history
Posture
Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether vendor entitled to one-half share of crop under R.S.S. 1920 c.126 s.3
- 02
Whether an attornment clause permitting application of the crop share to payments other than the land price excludes the protection of s.3
- 03
Whether the appellant made a valid seizure of the crop before it was sold to the respondent
Party arguments
- Applicant
- As vendor of the land appellant claimed a one-half share of the crop under The Crop Payments Act (R.S.S. 1920 c.126 s.3) and asserted entitlement to the value of grain sold by third parties to the respondent; appellant relied on the statutory right and asserted seizure of the crop.
- Respondent
- Respondent submitted that the agreement between vendor and purchaser included an attornment clause permitting the vendor's share of the crop to be applied toward payments other than the land price, which removes the case from the protection of s.3; respondent also argued that no valid seizure of the crop by the vendor had occurred and that respondent acquired the grain from third parties in good faith.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Crop Payments Act (R.S.S. 1920) c.126 s.3; applied by majority in Seibel v. Dwyer Elevator Co. [1924] S.C.R. 530
Remedial statutes conferring special vendor remedies are to be strictly construed.
- 02
Seibel v. Dwyer Elevator Co. [1924] S.C.R. 530 (majority)
Section 3 of the Crop Payments Act does not apply where the vendor's share of the crop may lawfully be applied toward payments other than the purchase price of the land.
- 03
Seibel v. Dwyer Elevator Co. [1924] S.C.R. 530 (majority)
A seizure of crop by a vendor must be valid and effective before disposition to third parties to prevail against subsequent purchasers.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Majority held that s.3 of the Crop Payments Act did not protect the vendor because the agreement permitted the vendor's share of the crop to be applied toward payments other than the land price, and that the appellant had not validly seized the crop; therefore the appeal failed and lower courts' judgments were affirmed.
Obiter and limits
- Dissent by Idington J. recorded but not elaborated in report
- Comments emphasizing strict construction of the Crop Payments Act
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan affirmed.
- Appeal dismissed with costs.
- Judgment of the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan affirmed.
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 14 October 1924
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· 14 October 1924
Seibel v. Dwyer Elevator Co. Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1924-10-14 Report [1924] SCR 530 Judges Idington, John; Duff, Lyman Poore; Mignault, Pierre-Basile; Malouin, Arthur Cyrille Albert; Maclean On appeal from Saskatchewan Subjects Sale Decision Content Supreme Court of Canada Seibel v. Dwyer Elevator Co., [1924] S.C.R. 530 Date: 1924-10-14 Seibel v. Dwyer Elevator Company 1924: May 9; 1924: October 14. Present: Idington, Duff, Mignault and Malouin JJ. and Maclean J. ad hoc.
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR SASKATCHEWAN Sale of land—Crop payment agreement—"Crop payments Act" (R.S.S.) 1920, c. 126, s. 3—Strict construction—Attornment clause—Premature seizure of grain by vendor. APPEAL from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan[1] affirming the judgment of Taylor J.[2] and dismissing the plaintiff appellant's action. The action is for payment of the value of certain grain sold by other parties to defendant respondent. The grain was received by the latter from these parties who acquired it from the purchasers of the land upon which it was grown. The appellant founded his claim upon the right conferred upon him as the vendor of the land to a one-half share of all the crop taken from the said land by his purchasers. He relies upon the provisions of "The Crop Payments Act," R.S.S. 1920, c. 126, s.
3. It was held by the courts below that the appellant could not in the circumstances of this case claim the benefit of that section which did not apply where, under the agreement, the share of the crop to be delivered to the vendor is to be, or may be, applied toward the payment of things other than the price of the land itself. It was also held that no valid seizure of the crop had been made by the appellant. On the appeal by the plaintiff to the Supreme Court of Canada, the court, after hearing counsel for both parties, reserved judgment, and, at a subsequent date, dismissed the appeal with costs, Idington J. dissenting. Appeal dismissed with costs. F. W. Turnbull for the appellant. H. Fisher K.C. and S. Clark for the respondent. [1] [1923] 17 Sask. L.R. 369; [1923] 2 W.W.R. 1051. [2] [1923] 1 W.W.R. 497.
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.