Advanced Search
- All Databases (4,782)
- Decisions (2,369)
- Resources (2,169)
4,782 result(s)
-
4,776.
Trust and Loan Co. v. Ruttan - (1877) 1 SCR 564 - 1877-06-28
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
the wife of the said Henry Huddlestone Thompson, during her life, and after her decease for the children of the said Henry Huddlestone Thompson on the body of his said wife to be begotten, as tenants in common, and in default of such issue for the heirs of one William Hamilton Thompson, and that the said Defendants hereto [...] The deed is in the hand writing of William Henry Van Ingren. The mortgage must have been drawn at Kingston and sent up to me.
-
4,777.
WM. Darling v. Robert Brown et Al - (1877) 1 SCR 360 - 1877-06-28
Supreme Court JudgmentsCivil procedure
William Darling, senior, opened a credit in her favor with William Darling & Co., for this sum, so that the firm charged William [...] I think we must assume, under the evidence, that William [Page 379] [...] was made by William Darling, which took the case out of the Statutes.
-
4,778.
Kandick v. Morrison - (1877) 2 SCR 12 - 1877-06-09
Supreme Court JudgmentsAppeal
William Kandick Appellant And Robert H. Morrison Respondent 1877: June 8, 9 [...] "which were of William Morrison, deceased, at the time of his death, in the hands of William Kandick to be administered, if the said William Kandick have so much thereof in his hands to be administered, or if not so much in his hands, then to make the costs out of the proper goods and chattels of said William Kandick." [...] "The within named William Kandick has no goods or chattels which were of the within named William Morrison, at the time of his death in his hands, to be administered in my bailiwick, whereof I can cause to be made the sum of $164.28 and interest, or any part
-
4,779.
The Queen v. Laliberté - (1877) 1 SCR 117 - 1877-02-03
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
The case of Rex v. Martin, ([24]); was tried before Mr. Justice Williams in 1834. [...] Williams J., said he was one of the counsel in R. v. Hodgson. The question in the present case was as to previous intercourse with the prisoner, and the question there was as to intercourse with other men.
-
4,780.
Church v. Abell - (1877) 1 SCR 442 - 1877-01-15
Supreme Court JudgmentsSale
See Marzetti v. Williams[15]; Doan v. Warren[16]; McLeod v. Boulton[17]; Mayne on Damages[18]. [...] This proposition is too elementary to require any authority, for it forms the first of the celebrated rules laid down by Sergeant Williams in his note to the leading case of Pordage v. Cole[48]. [...] [48] 1 Williams Notes to Sanders, 551; and see 2 Smith’s L.C. (Ed. 7) p. 14.
-
4,781.
Kelly v. Sulivan - (1877) 1 SCR 3 - 1877-01-15
Supreme Court JudgmentsCourts
Prince Edward Island, or the Island of St. John, as it was then called, previous to the year 1764, was under the same Government with the Province of Nova Scotia, and in giving the boundaries of that Province in the commission of William Campbell, Esq., commonly called Lord William Campbell, dated 11th August, 1766, [...] In the commission to Walter Patterson, dated 4th August, 1769, so much of the Patent to Lord William Campbell as mentioned the Island of St. John was revoked, and Patterson was appointed Captain-General and Governor-in-Chief of the Island and Territories adjacent thereto. [...] In Richards v. South Wales Railway Company, ([68]) Sir William Erle, in his judgment said: "It was admitted that the writ (of certiorari) was taken away as to all proceedings under the Acts (which he referred to), this rule therefore cannot be made abso-
-
4,782.
The Queen v. Taylor - (1877) 1 SCR 65 - 1877-01-15
Supreme Court JudgmentsCourts
In Evans v. Williams[15] it is laid down that it is a broad principle of construction that, unless the Court has a clear indication of an intention in an Act of Parliament to legislate ex post facto, and to give to the Act the effect of depriving a man of a right which belonged to him at the time of the passing [...] And William v. Smith[41] affirmed Jackson v. Wolley, and referred again with approval to Rolfe, B., observations in Moon v. Durden. [...] And in Evans v. Williams, as reported in 13th Weekly Reporter, 424, Kindersley, V.C., says: “But the ground on which I come to my conclusion, is, that unless the Court sees clearly an indication that the Legislature intended ex post facto to deprive a man of rights which existed at the time of the passing of the Act, it