HOPEWELL, August 9th, 1876. Dear Uncle Finlay,—I received a letter from you some time ago about your money. I delayed writing because I did not know what to write. I did not know but something would turn up that would enable me to pay you. I have a good deal of property-too much for these hard times-and I want to sell some of it but cannot in the meantime as times are that bad that people do not want to buy anything only what they cannot do without. But this state of matters will not continue long, and when the times get better I will make some arrangement to pay you your money. Be not afraid of it, as I have but a small family and no boys, I will have plenty to pay my debts. I did get somewhat behind hand by railway affairs, but have recovered, and I am now in possession of a good deal of property and in a fair way of doing well whenever the times get better. I regret very much keeping it from you so long; however, I hope the time will soon come when I will be able to pay you. 1891 GRANT 0. CAMERON. Yours very truly, ALEX. MCDONALD, HOPEWELL, June 19th, 1875. Dear Uncle,-I am in receipt of yours of the 31st of May about your money, and must say I am not astonished at you for wanting it. You ought to have had it long ago and you would have had it, only I was unfortunate in a railway contract I took, on the railroad between Truro and Pictou, in which I lost considerable money, and got largely in debt besides. After giving up the work I hired with the Government to carry on part of the work. At this time James and I commenced to build a cloth factory on a small scale, in order to have some permanent work. I borrowed most of what I put in. The man who had your money on mortgage, after having it two years, left. I had to sell the property, which I took from him by deed, for one thousand dollars ($1,000) losing by this likewise. I then got an offer from the Government to go to the Red River and NorthWest Territories to explore there for two years among the Indians, and got back last winter. I have now my debt nearly paid and the amount of your claim secure in property, viz., land property, so that you will be as sure of your money in a short time as if you had it. Do not think, Finlay, that I intend to do you, or any other body, out of one shilling. So rest assured that I have your money secured in a manner that you will get it, although I cannot send it now. You had good patience, so I hope you will have a little more, and I will put you all right. I believe I worked as hard and travelled far more than you did, and have been much more unfortunate than you were since you left; but since two years I have done well, and hope soon to do well by 16-SUP. CT. CAS. 1891 GRANT v. you. Now, Finlay, rest assured that I have your money secured so CAMERON. Mr. F. Thompson, Port Ludlow, British Columbia." ALEX. MCDONALD. The defendants contended, amongst other things, that these letters were only promises on condition that the writer, Alexander McDonald, should realize on the securities he refers to, or should be able to pay, and did not take the case out of the Statute of Limitations, and in the Supreme Court of Canada relied upon the following cases cited in the dissenting judgment of Mr. Justice Graham in the court below, namely, Skeet v. Lindsay (a); Chasemore v. Turner (b); Fearn v. Lewis (c); Hart v. Prendergast (d); Philips v. Philips (e); Murdoch v. Pitts (f). The defendants also contended that the notice of assignment did not comply with the statute by "stating the right of the assignee and specifying his demand thereunder." Borden, Q.C., appeared for the appellants. The only reasons for judgment delivered were the following: SIR W. J. RITCHIE C.J.-I think this appeal should be dismissed. As I have before remarked on the argument, it is quite clear that the cause of action was taken out of the Statute of Limitations by the letter of the 19th of June, 1875. I do not think, if the man had been living he would have ventured to come into court and contended that he had not made a promise to pay the money he had collected and to pay it shortly. Four years having elapsed before an (a) 2 Ex. D. 314. (b) L.R. 10 Q.B. 500, at p. 516. (d) 14 M. & W. 741. 1891 GRANT action was taken, he ought to be very grateful for the great forbearance of his creditor in this case. In the face of the debtor's letters it was very ungrateful to set up as a defence CAMERON. the Statute of Limitations. Then, as regards the notice of assignment I do not think the plaintiff could have said much more than he did. The notice explicitly says: That the debt due by the estate of Alex. McDonald to Finlay Thompson has been assigned by him to Alexander D. Cameron, who hereby claims payment of $1,200 the amount of the said debt so assigned by him. That shews and specifies what debt was due and they would know what they owed. As regards the question of interest, I am of opinion, like my brother Strong, that if the judgment on this point should be complained of, it ought to be by the respondent instead of the appellant. There was ample ground for allowing interest. The appeal must be dismissed with costs. STRONG J.-I quite agree with what has just been said by the learned Chief Justice, especially as regards the effect of the letter, which contains a clear acknowledgment of a debt and a promise to pay it within a short time. The notice of the assignment is also quite sufficient, as regards interest. I find at page 4 of the case that express notice of a demand for interest was made by the following words: Plaintiff hereby demands the payment of the sum of $2,558.20 and gives the defendants notice that if the amount be not paid forthwith, interest will be claimed thereon from date of this writ. This was in October, 1880. No doubt the solicitor who framed the notice had the statute before him. As regards this question of interest I think the appeal should have been from the other side. PATTERSON J.-I concur also. I have no doubt the proper reading of the letter of the 19th June, 1875, takes v. Ritchie C.J. 1890 GRANT บ. CAMERON. Patterson J. There is no the case out of the Statute of Limitations. As to the notice of the assignment-it is clearly a sufficient compliance with the statute. The statute requires that the notice shall specify the demand under the assignment because the assignment might only be of a portion of the debt or only entitle the assignee to demand a part of it. But I take it that this notice does specify the demand. It gives notice that the debt assigned is a debt of $1,200, and that the assignee claims the whole of the $1,200. In my opinion it is a literal compliance with the statute. As regards interest, as merely six years' interest upon $1,000 is allowed, there can be no objection. There was no demand for interest prior to the issue of the writ, but the judgment only gives six years' interest, while more than six years elapsed after action and before judgment. I think the judgment is right. Appeal dismissed with costs. Solicitor for appellants: H. M. Henry. ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH New trial-Misdirection, or improper non-direction. W., a trader, while in financial difficulties, transferred his property to B., one of his creditors, and subsequently made an assignment of his property in trust for the benefit of all his creditors. *XVIII, Can. S.C.R. 718. **PRESENT:-Sir W. J. Ritchie C.J., and Strong, Fournier, Gwynne and Patterson J.J. 1891 **June 16. |