Skip to main content
Supreme Court of Canada· 1928

Fauteux v. Massicotte

[1929] SCR 116
ContractJD
Cite or share
Share via WhatsAppEmail
Showing the official court-reporter headnote. An editorial brief (facts · issues · held · ratio · significance) is on the roadmap for this case. The judgment text below is the authoritative source.

Court headnote

Fauteux v. Massicotte Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1928-11-28 Report [1929] SCR 116 Judges Anglin, Francis Alexander; Mignault, Pierre-Basile; Newcombe, Edmund Leslie; Rinfret, Thibaudeau; Lamont, John Henderson On appeal from Quebec Subjects Professional law Decision Content Supreme Court of Canada Fauteux v. Massicotte, [1929] S.C.R. 116 Date: 1928-11-28 Fauteux v. Massicotte 1928: November 22, 28. Present: Anglin C.J.C. and Mignault, Newcombe, Rinfret and Lamont JJ. ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF KING’S BENCH, APPEAL SIDE, PROVINCE OF QUEBEC Notary—Agency—Representations to obtain renunciation to a privilege— Unpaid creditor—Liability of the notary APPEAL from the decision of the Court of King’s Bench, appeal side, province of Quebec[1], reversing the judgment of the trial judge, P. Demers J., and dismissing the appellants’ action. The appellants are contracting plumbers and their action is to recover balance of the amount due for work done on a building erected by a third party then insolvent, on the ground that the defendant respondent, a notary, had promised to pay that amount and, alternatively, on the ground that he had induced the appellants to continue the work and not to register any privilege, on the representation that he had in hand sufficient moneys to settle appellants’ claim. The Supreme Court maintained the appellants’ action, but that judgment was reversed on appeal. The Court of King’s Bench held that, under the circumstances of this case, a notary…

Read full judgment
Fauteux v. Massicotte
Collection
Supreme Court Judgments
Date
1928-11-28
Report
[1929] SCR 116
Judges
Anglin, Francis Alexander; Mignault, Pierre-Basile; Newcombe, Edmund Leslie; Rinfret, Thibaudeau; Lamont, John Henderson
On appeal from
Quebec
Subjects
Professional law
Decision Content
Supreme Court of Canada
Fauteux v. Massicotte, [1929] S.C.R. 116
Date: 1928-11-28
Fauteux v. Massicotte
1928: November 22, 28.
Present: Anglin C.J.C. and Mignault, Newcombe, Rinfret and Lamont JJ.
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF KING’S BENCH, APPEAL SIDE, PROVINCE OF QUEBEC
Notary—Agency—Representations to obtain renunciation to a privilege— Unpaid creditor—Liability of the notary
APPEAL from the decision of the Court of King’s Bench, appeal side, province of Quebec[1], reversing the judgment of the trial judge, P. Demers J., and dismissing the appellants’ action.
The appellants are contracting plumbers and their action is to recover balance of the amount due for work done on a building erected by a third party then insolvent, on the ground that the defendant respondent, a notary, had promised to pay that amount and, alternatively, on the ground that he had induced the appellants to continue the work and not to register any privilege, on the representation that he had in hand sufficient moneys to settle appellants’ claim.
The Supreme Court maintained the appellants’ action, but that judgment was reversed on appeal.
The Court of King’s Bench held that, under the circumstances of this case, a notary who informs a contractor that moneys had been deposited in his hands by an hypothecary lender and transmits to him the terms of the instructions given by the lender to employ those moneys for the payment of the contractors’ claims does not incur any liability, either as personal debtor or as surety for the owner of the building.
On the appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada after hearing counsel for the appellants and the respondent, judgment was delivered orally dismissing the appeal with costs for the reasons assigned by Mr. Justice Hall in the Court of King’s Bench.
Appeal dismissed with costs.
J. C. Lamothe K.C. for the appellants.
E. Lafleur K.C. and P. Couture K.C. for the respondent.
[1] (1928) Q.R. 46 K.B. 81.

Source: decisions.scc-csc.ca

Related cases