Rawlings and Ball v. Galibert

Rawlings and Ball v. Galibert

Majority held that Galibert delivered an unconditional $10,000 note to Lubin authorizing its use as collateral; Lubin lawfully used that authority in dealing with appellants so as to create an obligation by Galibert to indemnify appellants to the extent of $10,000. Consequently the parties did not become sureties for the same debtor and the same debt within article 1955 C.C., and parol evidence was admissible under art.1233(1) C.C. to establish the inter se arrangement; appeal allowed and action in warranty dismissed.

Citation
(1919) 59 SCR 611
Parties
Appellant/defendant: W. T. Rawlings and G. Ball; Respondent/plaintiff: Paul Galibert
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 December 1919
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal — Suretyship/guarantee Dispute / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Superior Court of Quebec (court of Review)
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs; judgment of the Court of Review reversed; respondent's action in warranty dismissed
Legal Topics
Suretyship, Accommodation/endorsement of Commercial Notes, Parol Evidence Admissibility, Indemnity Between Sureties, Contribution Among Co Sureties, Agency/mandate
Source Language
English
Guarantee and Suretyship Commercial Law Evidence Suretyship Accommodation/endorsement of Commercial Notes Parol Evidence Admissibility Indemnity Between Sureties Contribution Among Co Sureties +1 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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

W. T. Rawlings and G. Ball

Appellant/defendant

Paul Galibert

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal — Suretyship/guarantee Dispute / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Superior Court of Quebec (court of Review)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether maker's unconditional promissory note delivered to company president authorized use as collateral so as to create an obligation to indemnify co-sureties
  2. 2 Whether article 1955 C.C. (contribution among sureties for same debtor and same debt) applied
  3. 3 Admissibility of parol evidence (art. 1233(1) C.C.) to establish parties' inter se agreement in a commercial context

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held that Galibert delivered an unconditional $10,000 note to Lubin authorizing its use as collateral; Lubin lawfully used that authority in dealing with appellants so as to create an obligation by Galibert to indemnify appellants to the extent of $10,000. Consequently the parties did not become sureties for the same debtor and the same debt within article 1955 C.C., and parol evidence was admissible under art.1233(1) C.C. to establish the inter se arrangement; appeal allowed and action in warranty dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs; judgment of the Court of Review reversed; respondent's action in warranty dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Judgment of the Court of Review reversed