Can promissory notes issued by the unit holders in favour of March be attachable?
British Columbia, Canada
The following excerpt is from Yakir v. March Film B.C. Ltd., 1980 CanLII 514 (BC SC):
Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the promissory notes issued by the unit holders in favour of March and assigned to the bank and held by the bank were attachable. He relied upon Girard v. Cyrs (1896), 5 B.C.R. 45. In that case, Davie C.J. held that a promissory note which was not due at the time of service of a garnishee order was nevertheless an attachable debt.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
Can a common issue or issue be tried in advance of individual issues? (British Columbia, Canada)
How have the courts dealt with the issue of a promissory note? (British Columbia, Canada)
What are the issues costs for a party who is substantially successful on a discrete issue or issue? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for attaching an attachment in a personal injury claim? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for credibility issues on an application under the BCSC's triable issue of credibility rule? (British Columbia, Canada)
In what circumstances can a plaintiff obtain summary judgment against a defendant for failing to repay a promissory note? (British Columbia, Canada)
What are the relevant factors for determining whether either of two possible jurisdictions would be suitable for the determination of issues raised by the litigation at issue? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is a renewal of a promissory note made and payable in Canada payable in a foreign country a good consideration for the renewal? (British Columbia, Canada)
Does Bayer have to prove that individual issues predominate over any common issues? (British Columbia, Canada)
Can a plaintiff add a common issue addressing whether the mortgage provisions in issue are illegal or contrary to public policy? (British Columbia, Canada)
