Loveridge v. Grosch
Court headnote
Loveridge v. Grosch Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1930-05-07 Report [1931] SCR 142 Judges Duff, Lyman Poore; Newcombe, Edmund Leslie; Lamont, John Henderson; Smith, Robert; Cannon, Lawrence Arthur Dumoulin On appeal from Ontario Subjects Sale Decision Content Supreme Court of Canada Loveridge v. Grosch, [1931] S.C.R. 142 Date: 1930-05-07 Loveridge and Grosch Loveridge and Smith 1930: May 7. Present: Duff, Newcombe, Lamont, Smith and Cannon JJ. ON APPEAL FROM THE APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ONTARIO. Purchase of land for re-sale—Joint adventure—Non-disclosure of facts—Withdrawal of co‑adventurers—Right to share in profits. APPEAL by the defendant from the judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario[1], which, allowing the plaintiffs’ appeals from the judgment of McEvoy J.1, held that the plaintiffs were each entitled to a one-third share of the net profits which the defendant made on the purchase and re-sale of certain lands. On conclusion of the argument of counsel for the appellant, and without calling on counsel for the respondents, the Court orally delivered judgment dismissing the appeal with costs. Appeal dismissed with costs. J.H. Rodd K.C. and A.W.R. Sinclair for the appellant. R.S. Robertson K.C. for the respondent Smith. W.P. Harvie for the respondent Grosch. [1] 64 Ont. L.R. 465. …
Read full judgment
Loveridge v. Grosch Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1930-05-07 Report [1931] SCR 142 Judges Duff, Lyman Poore; Newcombe, Edmund Leslie; Lamont, John Henderson; Smith, Robert; Cannon, Lawrence Arthur Dumoulin On appeal from Ontario Subjects Sale Decision Content Supreme Court of Canada Loveridge v. Grosch, [1931] S.C.R. 142 Date: 1930-05-07 Loveridge and Grosch Loveridge and Smith 1930: May 7. Present: Duff, Newcombe, Lamont, Smith and Cannon JJ. ON APPEAL FROM THE APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ONTARIO. Purchase of land for re-sale—Joint adventure—Non-disclosure of facts—Withdrawal of co‑adventurers—Right to share in profits. APPEAL by the defendant from the judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario[1], which, allowing the plaintiffs’ appeals from the judgment of McEvoy J.1, held that the plaintiffs were each entitled to a one-third share of the net profits which the defendant made on the purchase and re-sale of certain lands. On conclusion of the argument of counsel for the appellant, and without calling on counsel for the respondents, the Court orally delivered judgment dismissing the appeal with costs. Appeal dismissed with costs. J.H. Rodd K.C. and A.W.R. Sinclair for the appellant. R.S. Robertson K.C. for the respondent Smith. W.P. Harvie for the respondent Grosch. [1] 64 Ont. L.R. 465.
Source: decisions.scc-csc.ca