Lamport v. Thompson et al

Lamport v. Thompson et al

The appeal is dismissed because the plaintiff's right to receive income constituted an interest in possession from the time part of the fund was set apart in December 1929, so the six‑year limitation in s.46(2) had run before the 1937 action; the proviso does not postpone the limitation period for a contingent corpus interest.

Citation
[1941] SCR 503
Parties
Plaintiff Appellant: Edythe G. Lamport; Defendant Respondent (executor, Trustee, Administrator Ad Litem): Stanley Alexander Thompson; Defendant Respondent (executor and Trustee): Chartered Trust and Executor Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 June 1941
Procedural Posture
Action for Alleged Breach of Trust / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario; Final Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Statute of Limitations, Interest in Possession Vs Contingent Interest, Breach of Trust, Acquiescence and Settlement Agreements
Source Language
English
Trusts Limitations of Actions Equity Statute of Limitations Interest in Possession Vs Contingent Interest Breach of Trust Acquiescence and Settlement Agreements

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edythe G. Lamport

Plaintiff Appellant

Stanley Alexander Thompson

Defendant Respondent (executor, Trustee, Administrator Ad Litem)

Chartered Trust and Executor Company

Defendant Respondent (executor and Trustee)

Procedural Posture

Action for Alleged Breach of Trust / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario; Final Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the action was time-barred by s.46(2) of The Limitations Act (R.S.O., 1937, c.118)
  2. 2 Whether the proviso that the statute shall not run until a beneficiary's interest becomes an interest in possession applies to a contingent corpus interest
  3. 3 Whether the August 7, 1931 agreement barred the plaintiff's claim by acquiescence/election

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the plaintiff's right to receive income constituted an interest in possession from the time part of the fund was set apart in December 1929, so the six‑year limitation in s.46(2) had run before the 1937 action; the proviso does not postpone the limitation period for a contingent corpus interest.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs