Simpson v. Tasker-Simpson Grain Co.
- Citation
- (1920) 60 SCR 647
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 6 April 1920
- Posture
- Civil Appeal / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 6 April 1920
- Posture
- Civil Appeal / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal holding that the evidence relied on to establish the alleged partnership was not sufficiently corroborated under the Alberta Evidence Act to sustain the counterclaim against the executrix; therefore the counterclaim could not defeat the appellant's claim and the judgment for the respondent was overturned.
Court disposition
Appeal allowed with costs
Orders
- Appeal allowed with costs
- Judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta reversed
- Counterclaim dismissed and judgment to be entered for the appellant consistent with the Supreme Court's decision
02
Material facts
Parties
Simpson
Appellant, Plaintiff, Executrix of Deceased Husband Counsel: H. P. O. Savary K.C.Tasker-Simpson Grain Co.
Respondent, Defendant Counsel: G. H. Ross K.C.Amounts and remedies
- Claim for Grain Sold and Delivered: CAD 8,147.99
03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Appeal / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether evidence of an alleged partnership between Tasker and the deceased husband was sufficiently corroborated under the Alberta Evidence Act to support a counterclaim against the executrix
- 02
Who bears the onus of proof for the existence of a partnership when one partner is deceased and the claim is against the deceased's estate
- 03
Whether the respondent's counterclaim based on an assignment from Tasker should defeat the appellant's undisputed claim for grain sold
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Appellant asserted an undisputed claim for $8,147.99 for grain sold and delivered and contended that the respondent's larger counterclaim depended on proof of a prior partnership. The appellant, as executrix, argued that Tasker's evidence of partnership was not sufficiently corroborated as required by the Alberta Evidence Act and therefore the estate was not liable for the alleged partnership obligations.
- Respondent
- Respondent did not dispute the appellant's sale but relied on a counterclaim assigned by Tasker for transactions alleged to have been conducted by a pre-incorporation partnership between Tasker and the deceased. Respondent argued Tasker's testimony and supporting facts sufficiently proved the partnership and justified judgment on the counterclaim against the estate.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Alberta Evidence Act
Testimony of a surviving partner asserting partnership debts against the estate of a deceased partner must be corroborated as required by the Alberta Evidence Act
- 02
Common law principles on partnership and probate claims cited by the court
Burden of proof lies on the party asserting the existence of a partnership and the liability of the deceased's estate for partnership obligations
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal holding that the evidence relied on to establish the alleged partnership was not sufficiently corroborated under the Alberta Evidence Act to sustain the counterclaim against the executrix; therefore the counterclaim could not defeat the appellant's claim and the judgment for the respondent was overturned.
Obiter and limits
- Appellate equal division in the Alberta court resulted in affirmation below but was not decisive on the corroboration requirement
- The decision underscores a strict application of corroboration rules in actions against executors and administrators
Court disposition
Appeal allowed with costs
- Appeal allowed with costs
- Judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta reversed
- Counterclaim dismissed and judgment to be entered for the appellant consistent with the Supreme Court's decision
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 6 April 1920
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· 6 April 1920
Simpson v. Tasker-Simpson Grain Co. Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1920-04-06 Report (1920) 60 SCR 647 Judges Davies, Louis Henry; Idington, John; Duff, Lyman Poore; Anglin, Francis Alexander; Brodeur, Louis-Philippe; Mignault, Pierre-Basile On appeal from Alberta Subjects Evidence Decision Content Supreme Court of Canada Simpson v. Tasker-Simpson Grain Co., (1920) 60 S.C.R. 647 Date: 1920-04-06 Simpson; v. Tasker-simpson Grain Co. 1920: February 12, 13; 1920: April 6. Present:—Sir Louis Davies C.J. and Idington, Duff, Anglin, Brodeur and Mignault JJ. ON APPEAL FROM THE APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ALBERTA. Evidence—Partnership—Claim of surviving partner—Onus probandi. APPEAL from the judgment of the Supreme Court of Alberta, Appellate Division[1], affirming, on equal division, the judgment of Walsh J. at the trial and maintaining the counterclaim of the defendant, respondent. The appellant claimed $8,147.99 for grain sold and delivered to the respondent. This claim was not disputed by the respondent, but he fyled a counterclaim for a greater amount claimed to be due him by appellant's husband upon transactions made on behalf of an alleged partnership between Tasker and Simpson, before the incorporation of the respondent company, the claim having been transferred by Tasker to the respondent. The whole question was whether the evidence of Tasker as to the
existence of such partnership was sufficiently corroborated to satisfy the "Alberta Evidence Act" in a case of a claim against the executor of the estate of a deceased person, as in the present case the appellant had been named executrix of her husband's estate. The trial judge found in favor of the respondent, and, the Appellate Division, upon an equal division of the court, affirmed this judgment. 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, allowed the appeal with costs. Appeal allowed with costs. H. P. O. Savary K.C. for the appellant. G. H. Ross K.C. for the respondent. [1] [1919] 3 W.W.R. 928.
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.