Russell v. Murphy

Russell v. Murphy

No enforceable debt or chose in action existed between Shirley and Marco/Odilio that could be validly assigned to Russell; any purported assignment was ineffective because there was no standalone debt and no notice to the debtor, and the purchasers' executed release operated to extinguish their claims. Consequently...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2017 NSSM 38
Parties
Claimant: Robert Joseph Russell; Defendant: Shirley Budhia Murphy
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court / Decision
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Deposit, Assignment of Chose in Action, Release, Mortgage, Good Faith
Source Language
english
Real Property Contract Law Equity Civil Procedure Deposit Assignment of Chose in Action Release Mortgage +1 more

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Joseph Russell

Claimant

Shirley Budhia Murphy

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Court / Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the $15,000 deposit constituted a separable debt owed by the seller to the purchasers
  2. 2 Whether Marco and Odilio validly assigned any claimed debt to Russell without notice to the debtor
  3. 3 Whether the purported assignment survived the purchasers' executed release

Ratio Decidendi

No enforceable debt or chose in action existed between Shirley and Marco/Odilio that could be validly assigned to Russell; any purported assignment was ineffective because there was no standalone debt and no notice to the debtor, and the purchasers' executed release operated to extinguish their claims. Consequently Russell's claim is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim dismissed