Bell v. Vipond et al.

Bell v. Vipond et al.

The Court held the amount in controversy was clearly over $2000 based on the plaintiff's contestation and withdrawal of the alternative $1000 claim, thereby establishing Supreme Court jurisdiction and entitling the plaintiff to have his security for appeal allowed.

Citation
(1901) 31 SCR 175
Parties
Appellant: William Bell; Respondents: George Vipond et al.
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 March 1901
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Motion to Allow Security for Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada
Outcome
Motion allowed with costs; security for appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
Reddition De Compte, Amount in Controversy, Security for Appeal, Jurisdictional Threshold
Source Language
English
Appeal Civil Procedure Jurisdiction Account Rendering Reddition De Compte Amount in Controversy Security for Appeal Jurisdictional Threshold

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

Parties

William Bell

Appellant

George Vipond et al.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Motion to Allow Security for Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court of Canada has jurisdiction where contested items in an account exceed $2000 in the aggregate
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's security for appeal should be allowed

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held the amount in controversy was clearly over $2000 based on the plaintiff's contestation and withdrawal of the alternative $1000 claim, thereby establishing Supreme Court jurisdiction and entitling the plaintiff to have his security for appeal allowed.

Court Disposition

Motion allowed with costs; security for appeal allowed.

Orders

  • Motion allowed with costs.
  • Security for appeal allowed.