Monarch Timber Exporters Ltd. v. Bell

Monarch Timber Exporters Ltd. v. Bell
Collection
Supreme Court Judgments
Date
1964-03-23
Report
[1964] SCR 375
Judges
Cartwright, John Robert; Abbott, Douglas Charles; Martland, Ronald; Judson, Wilfred; Spence, Wishart Flett
On appeal from
British Columbia
Subjects
Contract
Decision Content
Supreme Court of Canada
Monarch Timber Exporters Ltd. v. Bell, [1964] S.C.R. 375
Date: 1964-03-23
Monarch Timber Exporters Ltd., McCorkle Brothers Logging Ltd., Menlo Construction Co. Ltd., Rue Creek Service Co. Ltd. (Plaintiffs) Appellants;
and
Ian H. Bell, The Canada Trust Company, MacMillan, Bloedel & Powell River Industries Ltd. (Defendants) Respondents
1964: February 10, 11; 1964: March 23.
Present: Cartwright, Abbott, Martland, Judson and Spence JJ.
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA
Contracts—Breach of loan agreement—Notice of default sent by lender to borrower—Appointment of receiver—Validity of notice.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia[1], dismissing an appeal from a judgment of Munroe J. dismissing the appellants' action for a declaration that the appointment of a receiver of their property was void. Appeal dismissed.
A. W. Johnson, for the plaintiffs, appellants.
J. J. Robinette, Q.C., and C. W. Brazier, Q.C., for the defendants, respondents.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by
MARTLAND J.:—This is an appeal from the unanimous judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia[2], dismissing the appellants' appeal from the judgment given at the trial in favour of the respondents.
In my opinion this appeal fails. I agree with the reasons given by Tysoe J.A., who delivered the judgment of the Court of Appeal, in finding that the defaults alleged by the respondent, MacMillan, Bloedel & Powell River Industries Ltd., in paragraphs 1 and 2 of its notice of default dated May 16, 1961, addressed to the appellants, in respect of the agreement dated September 17, 1957, had been successfully established.
It was conceded in argument by counsel for the appellants, and I agree, that the contention of counsel for the respondents, that the notice of default was valid if any one or more of the defaults alleged in it was successfully established, is sound. This being so, it is unnecessary to determine whether or not there had been defaults as alleged in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the notice.
In my opinion, therefore, this appeal should be dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Solicitor for the plaintiffs, appellants: A. W. Johnson, Vancouver.
Solicitors for the defendants, respondents: Davis, Campbell, Brazier & McLorg, Vancouver.
[1] (1964), 41 D.L.R. (2d) 535.
[2] (1964), 41 D.L.R. (2d) 535.