W.P. Howland & Co. v. Dominion Bank

SEDGEWICK-J.-The appeal in this case relates to a question -of practice only. The writ of summons had been renewed three times by the master in chambers, at Toronto, and was not served until nearly four years from the date of its issue had elapsed. The order for the third renewal was set aside by the master, whose order was affirmed by Mr. Justice Street, at chambers, by the

Divisional Court and by the Court of Appeal. The effect of the master's order was, it is contended, to enable the defendant bank to set up the statute of limitation as a defence to the action, should it be begun de novo, hence the necessity on the plaintiff's part to maintain alive the writ itself, as well as its several renewals.

I am of opinion that the appeal must fail for the reasons stated by Mr. Justice Osler in the Court

Appeal, to whose judgment ito observations of mine can usefully be added.

The appeal should, I think, be dismissed with costs.

Appeal dismissed with.costs.