Burrows (John) Ltd. v. Sub Surface Surveys Ltd., [1967] N.B. Law News No. 64 (CA)

JudgeBridges, C.J.N.B., Ritchie and Limerick, JJ.A.
CourtCourt of Appeal (New Brunswick)
Case DateMay 10, 1967
JurisdictionNew Brunswick
Citations[1967] N.B. Law News No. 64 (CA)

Burrows Ltd. v. Sub Surface Surveys, [1967] N.B. Law News No. 64 (CA)

MLB Law News

John Burrows Ltd. (respondent) v. Sub Surface Surveys Ltd. (appellant)

Indexed As: Burrows (John) Ltd. v. Sub Surface Surveys Ltd.

New Brunswick Supreme Court

Appeal Division

Bridges, C.J.N.B., Ritchie and Limerick, JJ.A.

May 10, 1967.

Summary:

Appeal from Judgment reported in N.B. Law News - #66-23

Estoppel and Promissory Note - Appeal allowed in part from judgment of trial court in favour of plaintiff/respondent for $42,000.00, the principal amount of an instrument held by the trial court to be a promissory note together with interest of $420.00. Court applied equitable principles of promissory estoppel or waiver or quasi estoppel in disallowing plaintiff/respondent's claim for interest of $420.00, stating that the Df.'s position was prejudiced when the Pl. lulled or misled the Df. into a belief that the right to payment of the principal immediately upon a default would be held in abeyance until the Df. was informed otherwise. Bridges, C.J.N.B. (dissenting) would have dismissed the appeal with costs and refused to apply the doctrine of estoppel stating that creditors might tend to become harsh and rigid in enforcing their rights.

The Court reviewed at great length the authorities with respect to promissory estoppel. Court held that a purported promissory note with a "whole or any portion" prepayment privilege is not a promissory note within the meaning of the Bills of Exchange Act.

The Court stated that it is an undesirable and dangerous situation where a barrister and solicitor acts for two parties with conflicting interests even with the consent of both parties. Court stated "all transactions of purchase and sale include a possibility of conflicting interests developing. Barristers and solicitors should be careful to avoid acceptance of any retainer which involves such a possibility."

Counsel:

E. Neil McKelvey, Q.C., for the defendant/appellant;

William L. Hoyt, for the plaintiff/respondent.

This case was heard before Bridges, C.J.N.B., Ritchie and Limerick, JJ.A., of the New Brunswick Supreme Court, Appeal Division, who delivered the following decision on May 10, 1967.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT