Mignault v. Desjardins, (1917) 55 SCR 618

Supreme Court of Canada

Mignault v. Desjardins, (1917) 55 S.C.R. 618

Date: 1917-10-09

Mignault v. Desjardins.

1917: February 27, 28; 1917: October 9.

Present: Sir Charles Fitzpatrick C.J. and Idington, Duff, Anglin and Brodeur JJ.

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE PROVINCE OF QUEBEC, SITTING IN REVIEW AT MONTREAL.

Principal and agent—Real estate agent—Option—Fraud.

APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Review at Montreal[1], affirming the judgment of the trial court and maintaining the plaintiff's action with costs.

On September 11th, 1912, the appellants wrote one Rollit a letter in which they agreed to buy the property situate in Montreal and known as the Molson property, at the price of $425,000.00, payable $75,000.00 at the passing of the deed, $50,000.00 in one year, and the balance in five years. Thereupon, Rollit secured a sub-option on that property from the Colonial Real Estate Company, which had an option to purchase from the owners, the Grey Nuns, the price to be paid being $395,000.00. Rollit took such option "on behalf of his client," but it has been found by both courts below, as a fact, that in doing so, he was not acting as the agent of the appellants. Subsequently, the appellant Morin became aware of the fact that the respondent was Rollit's undisclosed principal but said nothing at the time. The conditions of the option held by Rollit were altered, with respect to the terms of payment, to suit the appellants; and to bind the option, Rollit paid the Colonial Real Estate

[Page 619]

Company $5,000.00, which sum he had received from the appellants. The appellants were notified in due course that Rollit and his principal were prepared to sell the property and make good the title in accordance with the terms of appellants' letter, but the appellants refused to carry out the bargain. The result was that the appellants bought the property direct from the Grey Nuns for the price at which the latter agreed to sell to Rollit; and the respondent lost the benefit of his option, i.e., $29,824, for the recovery of which he took action against the appellants.

The judgment of the trial judge, Panneton J., maintaining the action of the respondent, was affirmed by the Court of Review; and, on appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, the judgment was also affirmed by a majority of the court.

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Louis Boyer K.C. for the appellants.

Lafleur K.C. and G. Barclay for the respondent.