Langley v. Van Allen and Co.

Langley v. Van Allen and Co.

Because the debtor paid the notes voluntarily and without coercion he could not have recovered the payments himself and the assignee stands in his shoes and is in no better position; allowing recovery would create an improper post‑assignment preference for some creditors, therefore the payments need not be returned and the lower judgments are affirmed.

Citation
(1902) 32 SCR 174
Parties
Plaintiffs/appellants: James P. Langley and Others; Defendants/respondents: E. Van Allen and Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 May 1902
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed.
Legal Topics
Voluntary Payment, Fraudulent Preference, Assignee Standing, Composition and Extension of Time
Source Language
English
Contract Insolvency Equity Voluntary Payment Fraudulent Preference Assignee Standing Composition and Extension of Time

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James P. Langley and Others

Plaintiffs/appellants

E. Van Allen and Company

Defendants/respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether payments voluntarily made by the debtor to a creditor that created a secret preference are recoverable by the assignee
  2. 2 Whether payments made under an unlawful agreement but without coercion can be recovered
  3. 3 Whether the assignee has locus standi to seek recovery that would benefit only some creditors (creating a post‑assignment preference)

Ratio Decidendi

Because the debtor paid the notes voluntarily and without coercion he could not have recovered the payments himself and the assignee stands in his shoes and is in no better position; allowing recovery would create an improper post‑assignment preference for some creditors, therefore the payments need not be returned and the lower judgments are affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed.