Mason v. Scott
Court headnote
Mason v. Scott Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1935-04-15 Report [1935] SCR 656 Judges Duff, Lyman Poore; Lamont, John Henderson; Cannon, Lawrence Arthur Dumoulin; Davis, Henry Hague; Dysart On appeal from Nova Scotia Subjects Contract Decision Content Supreme Court of Canada Mason v. Scott, [1935] S.C.R. 656 Date: 1935-04-15 Mason v. Scott and Anderson 1935: February 19, 20; 1935: April 15. Present: Duff C.J. and Lamont, Cannon and Davis JJ., and Dysart J. ad hoc. ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA IN BANCO Contract—Alleged substitution of oral contract for previous written one—Evidence. APPEAL by the plaintiff from the judgment of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia in banco[1] dismissing (Hall J. dissenting) his appeal from the judgment of Graham J.[2] holding that he was not entitled to recover the sums payable under the terms of a certain written agreement under seal, on the ground that the parties had subsequently substituted a certain oral agreement for the said written agreement relied on by the plaintiff. On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, after hearing the arguments of counsel, this Court reserved judgment, and on a subsequent day delivered judgment allowing the appeal with costs throughout. Written reasons were delivered by Lamont J., with whom the other members of the Court concurred. These reasons, after discussing the evidence at length, concludes that the evidence does not justify a finding that the parties substituted an oral agreement…
Full judgment (source text)
Mirrored from decisions.scc-csc.ca — the linked original is authoritative.
Mason v. Scott Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1935-04-15 Report [1935] SCR 656 Judges Duff, Lyman Poore; Lamont, John Henderson; Cannon, Lawrence Arthur Dumoulin; Davis, Henry Hague; Dysart On appeal from Nova Scotia Subjects Contract Decision Content Supreme Court of Canada Mason v. Scott, [1935] S.C.R. 656 Date: 1935-04-15 Mason v. Scott and Anderson 1935: February 19, 20; 1935: April 15. Present: Duff C.J. and Lamont, Cannon and Davis JJ., and Dysart J. ad hoc. ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA IN BANCO Contract—Alleged substitution of oral contract for previous written one—Evidence. APPEAL by the plaintiff from the judgment of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia in banco[1] dismissing (Hall J. dissenting) his appeal from the judgment of Graham J.[2] holding that he was not entitled to recover the sums payable under the terms of a certain written agreement under seal, on the ground that the parties had subsequently substituted a certain oral agreement for the said written agreement relied on by the plaintiff. On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, after hearing the arguments of counsel, this Court reserved judgment, and on a subsequent day delivered judgment allowing the appeal with costs throughout. Written reasons were delivered by Lamont J., with whom the other members of the Court concurred. These reasons, after discussing the evidence at length, concludes that the evidence does not justify a finding that the parties substituted an oral agreement for the original written one. Appeal allowed with costs. W. P. Potter for the appellant. D. K. MacTavish and H. C. Moseley for the respondents. [1] 8 M.P.R. 219; [1934] 3 D.L.R. 769. [2] 8 M.P.R. 219, at 220-223; [1934] 3 D.L.R. 769, at 769-772.
Source: decisions.scc-csc.ca
Hadley v Baxendale
(1854) 9 Exch 341