Union Investment Co. v. Wells

Union Investment Co. v. Wells
Collection
Supreme Court Judgments
Date
1908-05-05
Report
(1908) 41 SCR 244
Judges
Girouard, Désiré; Davies, Louis Henry; Idington, John; Maclennan, James; Duff, Lyman Poore
On appeal from
Manitoba
Subjects
Action
Decision Content
Supreme Court of Canada
Union Investment Co. v. Wells, (1908) 41 S.C.R. 244
Date: 1908-05-05
The Union Investment Company (Plaintiffs) Appellants;
and
Martin W. J. Wells and Others (Defendants) Respondents.
1908: May 5.
Present: Girouard, Davies, Idington, Maclennan and Duff JJ.
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH FOR. MANITOBA.
Practice—Appeal to Privy Council—Stay of execution—Security.
Where after judgment on appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada the losing party proposes to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council the court will order proceedings on such judgment in the court of original jurisdiction to be stayed on satisfactory security being given for the debt interest and costs.
Motion for stay of proceedings pending an application to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for leave to appeal.
In Adams & Burns v. Bank of Montreal[1] Mr. Justice Girouard in chambers refused an application for a stay of proceedings, pending an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council, stating that he had consulted with his brother judges and they all agreed that it had been the rule invariably to refuse such stay. It was contended in the present case on behalf of the applicants that, as pointed out in Mr. Cameron's book on the Supreme Court Rules, p. 164, the present rule 136, which at that time was in force as part of general order No. 85, did not appear to have been called to the attention of the court either in the case of Adams & Burns v. Bank of Montreal[2], or in any other case where applications were made to stay proceedings pending an appeal to the Judicial Committee. The application, made after the judgment had been entered and certified to the court of original jurisdiction, was granted and the following order made:
"Stay of execution for a week granted to put in security to the satisfaction of the registrar for debt, interest and costs, the applicant undertaking that his application to the Privy Council will be made not later than June 20th, up to which date stay to operate if security put in as above."
Bethune, for the application.
Glyn Osler, contra.
On October 20th, 1908, in the case of Montreal Light, Heat & Power Co. v. Regan Mr. Justice Duff made an order staying proceedings on the judgment of the court in favour of the respondent for one month, and, if satisfactory security should be given for the debt, interest and costs on or before Nov. 20th, further proceedings to be stayed until an application to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for leave to appeal from said judgment should be disposed of, applicants to be at liberty to enter judgment to enable them to apply.
In the case of The Byron N. White Co. v. Star Mining and Milling Co. a similar order was made by the Chief Justice in chambers on March 23rd, 1909.
[1] 31 Can. S.C.R. 223.
[2] 31 Can. S.C.R. 223.