APPELLANT ;*No INSOLVENT (PLAINTIFF)............
LEWIS McDONALD JOHN C.
HEFFERNAN (DEFENDANTS)......
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO. Sir W. J. C.J.-I did not take part in the judgment of this court in the case of Molsons Bank v. Halter
I have most carefully read the judgments delivered in that case.
Had I been unable to arrive [VOL. XX. at a conclusion in consonance with that come to by the majority of the court I should have felt myself s bound to follow that decision, but I am happy to say,IcDONALD. after a careful consideration of the case, that I entirely agree with the reasoning of my brother Strong and the conclusion at which he arrived.
That case disposes of the present in which there was no concurrence of intent, on the one side to give and on the other to accept, a preference over other creditors, inasmuch as there is nothing to show that the defendant was aware of the insolvency of the debtor, and there is nothing in the evidence to suggest any bad faith or collusion between the defendant and his debtor.
J.-I am of opinion that this appeal should be dismissed with costs, my reasons for this conclusion being that pressure having been proved there was not a preference such as the statute avoids. Having alreadyin the cases of Molsons Bank v. Halter (1) and Stephens v. McArthur stated my opinion as to the proper meaning and construction of the statute I do not feel called upon to repeat them again. Moreover I consider the question settled and concluded so far as authority goes by the decisions of this court in the two cases referred to.
and JJ. concurred in dismissing the appeal.
J.-The decisions of this court in Molsons Bank v. Halter (1) and in Stephens v. McArthur settle the questions of law in this case against the [-VOL. xx. appellant, and it has been found that there was not in fact any intent to prefer. Therefore the appeal must be dismissed.
Patterson
Appeal dismissed with costs.