Supreme Court
of Canada
Robinson, Little
& Co. v. Scott & Son, (1907) 39 S.C.R. 281
Date: 1907-06-24
Robinson, Little and
Company, on behalf of themselves and all other creditors of the defendant
McGillivray, (Plaintiffs) Appellants;
and
M. McGillivray and
J.W. Scott & Son Defendants;
and
J.W. Scott & Son,
(Defendants) (Respondents).
1907: June 6, 24.
Present: Girouard, Davies, Idington,
Maclennan and Duff JJ.
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR
ONTARIO.
Insolvency—Preferential transfer of cheque—Deposit in private bank—Application
of funds to debt due banker—Sinister intention—Payment to creditor—R.S.O. (1897), c. 147, s. 3(1).
McG., a
merchant in insolvent circumstances, although not aware of that fact, sold his
stock-in-trade and deposited the cheque received for the price to the credit of
his account with a private banker to whom he was indebted, at the time, upon an
overdue promissory note that had been, without his knowledge, charged against
his account a few days before the sale. Within two days after making the
deposit, McG. gave the banker his cheque to cover the amount of the note. In an
action to have the transfer of the cheque, so deposited, set aside as
preferential and void.
Held, affirming the judgment appealed from
(13 Ont. L.R. 232) that the transaction was a payment to a creditor within the
meaning of the statute, R.S.O. (1897) ch. 147, sec. 3, sub‑sec, 1, which
was not, under the circumstances, void as against creditors.
APPEAL from the
judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario,
affirming the judgment of the Divi-
[Page 282]
sional Court,
and the judgment of Falconbridge C.J., at the trial, by which the plaintiffs’ action to set aside an alleged preferential transfer was
dismissed with costs.
The material
circumstances of the case are stated in the head-note, and are also referred to
in the report of the judgment, on 2nd April, 1907,
dismissing a motion to quash the appeal.
George C. Gibbons, for the appellants.
Meredith K.C. and Brewster for the
respondents.
GIROUARD J.—This appeal is dismissed with costs.
DAVIES J. agreed
that the appeal should be dismissed with costs.
IDINGTON J.—This appeal is from the Court of Appeal for Ontario
upholding a judgment of a Divisional Court of that province and a judgment of
the learned trial judge in a creditors’ suit to set aside a transfer by the
debtor of a cheque received within sixty days from the attack thus made on the
transaction.
In the Divisional
Court the late Mr. Justice Street dissented and gave some strong reasons to
shew that the primâ facie presumption created by the Revised Statutes of
Ontario (1897), ch. 147, against such assignments by an insolvent or one on the
eve of insolvency was not rebutted.
Even if the
difficulties in the way of the creditors
[Page 283]
here, arising from
the semblance of the transaction to the case of payment, which is not within
the statute, could be got over, I fear we cannot, since the case of Baldocchi
v. Spada,
recently decided in this court, interfere with the judgment of the court below.
The comparison seems to me somewhat as follows:
The debtor there
was shewn clearly to have been so hopelessly insolvent that, after his estate
was depleted by something over $4,100 worth of stock transferred to the
preferred creditor, the other creditors would not realize more than a few cents
on the dollar.
Here the proof is
not so clear. The learned trial judge credited the debtor when he swore that he
did not believe he was in fact insolvent at the date of the transaction.
The total debts
were small and would have been wiped out by sales of the debtor’s real estate, at values for which it had been assessed,
and otherwise valued at.
Again, the
preferred creditor there was the creditor for money lent and long past due and
the guarantor to the bank for his debtor and here the note was past due to the
banker.
There the
guarantor had been called on to make good his guarantee to the sum of nearly
$2,000 and the debtor could not meet his debt but promised he would in a month,
just as the debtor here did. In both cases forbearance was shewn for some weeks
before the alleged preferential assignments in question were made.
There the creditor
was so alarmed that he ad-
[Page 284]
mitted under oath
he had “felt funny and afraid” when default was made.
Here the creditor
swears that he did not believe the debtor was insolvent and that he considered
him solvent. This he swore to with the knowledge derived from a statement of
the debtor’s affairs given him some time before,
and the debtor who had given this statement was recognized by him and admitted
by appellants’ counsel at the trial to be an honest
man.
The debtor in the
other case was the reverse of this and indeed fled just after the alleged
preferential transfer and his creditor contented himself with not inquiring
though he had felt “funny and afraid” for a month before.
The evidence here
may, in the last analysis, rest on rather too sanguine estimates but, beyond
that, seems credible.
The usual course
of business between the parties was observed here, but there, as between the
parties, there was a clear departure therefrom.
The evidence in
the Baldocchi Case I
dealt with in my opinion therein.
As I intimated
there, I would have preferred seeing the parties claiming under such
preferences held to a different standard.
This case may not
be quite satisfactory but the claim of Garborino in the above case having been
upheld with much less to rest upon than that of the respondent, I do not see
how I can, in view of these features common to both, refuse to uphold this
judgment.
I think the appeal
must be dismissed with costs.
[Page 285]
MACLENNAN J.—I agree to dismiss the appeal with costs.
DUFF J.—I agree to the dismissal of the appeal. I think it
unnecessary to add anything to the reasons given in the Court of Appeal for
Ontario.
Appeal
dismissed with costs.
Solicitors for the appellants:
Gibbons, Harper & Gibbons.
Solicitors for the respondents:
Blewett & Bray.
13 Ont.
L.R. 232, sub nom. Robinson v. McGillivray.