Advanced Search

Syntax: "", OR, AND, EXACT(), /p, /s, /n
(YYYY or YYYY-MM or YYYY-MM-DD)
Sort by: Relevance Date

2,511 result(s)

  • 2,376.

    Sutherland-Innes Co. v. Romney (Township) - (1900) 30 SCR 495 - 1900-10-04

    Supreme Court Judgments
    Municipal law

    As to the powers of the municipality under sec. 75 of 57 Vict. ch. 56, see In re Stonehouse and Plympton[5], and as to “injuring liability”, Scott v. Town of Peterborough[6].

  • 2,377.

    Brigham v. Banque Jacques-Cartier - (1900) 30 SCR 429 - 1900-06-12

    Supreme Court Judgments
    Bankruptcy and insolvency

    Cokshott v Bennett ([25]) Jackson v. Lomas ([26]); Eastabrook v. Scott ([27]); Jackman v. Mitchell ([28]); Mare v. Sandford ([29]).

  • 2,378.

    The Queen v. Yule et al. - (1899) 30 SCR 24 - 1899-10-24

    Supreme Court Judgments
    Constitutional law

    Viney v. Bignold[6]; Babbage v. Coulburn[7], (affirmed on appeal); Russell on Awards, (7 ed.) 60 to 63; Elliott v. Royal Exchange Assurance Co.[8]; Scott v. Corporation of Liverpool[9]; Fox v. The Railroad[10]; Scott v. Avery[11]; Caledonian Insurance Co. v. Gilmour[12] at page 90, per Herschell L. C., and again at page 95,

  • 2,379.

    SCR | RCS (1899) vol 29 - 1899-10-13

    Canada Supreme Court Reports

    (Mass.) 337 . 158 17 Can. S. C. R. 612 . 485 . 120 . 223 569 5 Scott, 25; 3 Bing.   [...]  Schwerenski v. Vineberg Scott v. Avery Scott v. London & St. Katherine) Docks Co. . . f Scott v. Phoenix Assur.   [...]  (4) 5 Scott 25 ; 3 Bing. N.C. 892. (2) 3 Dow 23. (5) 2 H. & N. 277.

  • 2,380.

    The Queen v. S.S. "Troop" - (1899) 29 SCR 662 - 1899-10-03

    Supreme Court Judgments
    Appeal

    We refer also to Hespeler v. Shaw[12]; In re Trepanier[13]; The Queen v. Ambrose and Winslow[14]; The Queen v. Coulson[15]; The Queen v. Scott[16]; and Royal Insurance Co. v. Duffus[17].

  • 2,381.

    Consolidated Plate Glass Co. of Canada v. Caston - (1899) 29 SCR 624 - 1899-06-06

    Supreme Court Judgments
    Labour law

    On the day in question the defendant had procured a horse, waggon and driver from The Cobban Company, under the above arrangement, and had requested the driver to deliver some glass at the office of Scott & Walmsley on the west side of Church Street, in the said city.   [...]  and accordingly the defendant’s foreman asked the driver to take him to the shop of one Phillips, on Church Street, above King Street, where he could procure a ladder and place it on said waggon and have it delivered at said office of Scott & Walmsley, and it was whilst going for such ladder that the accident occurred.

  • 2,382.

    Hyde v. Lindsay - (1899) 29 SCR 595 - 1899-06-05

    Supreme Court Judgments
    Estates

    We are therefore of opinion that the appeal should be allowed with costs before all the courts and that this action be referred to William L. Scott, Esquire, one of the masters of the High Court of Justice of Ontario, at Ottawa, to take an account of the amount reasonably and properly paid or incurred by appellant as such

  • 2,383.

    Zwicker v. Feindel - (1899) 29 SCR 516 - 1899-06-05

    Supreme Court Judgments
    Sale

    [8] 4 M. & G. 209; 4 Scott (N. R.) 638. [9] 2 Ex. 654. [10] 2 DeG. M. & G. 339.

  • 2,384.

    Zwicker v. Zwicker - (1899) 29 SCR 527 - 1899-06-05

    Supreme Court Judgments
    Contract

    The following cases may be selected from a greater number as controverting any such proposition: Doe d. Garnons v. Knight[18]; Exton v. Scott[19]; Fletcher v. Fletcher[20]; Xenos v. Wickham[21]; Hall v. Palmer[22]; Moore v. Hazelton[23].

  • 2,385.

    Collins Bay Rafting & Forwarding Co. v. Kaine - (1898) 29 SCR 247 - 1898-12-14

    Supreme Court Judgments
    Lease

    On the ship coming into port she was surveyed by Scott and Steele and, whatever Scott might say in 1812, it is clear that he and Steele, applying particular assertions to particular facts, upon this survey, stated that part of the timbers were decayed and that the iron work, in general, was very much decayed and wrought   [...]  [27] 5 scott 25; 3 Bing. N.C. 892. [28] 2 H. &N. 277. [29] 4 Dow 269.

  • 2,386.

    Roberts v. Hawkins - (1898) 29 SCR 218 - 1898-12-14

    Supreme Court Judgments
    Torts

    and renders them liable; Ross v. Langlois ([12]); Corner v. Byrd ([13]); Evans v. Monette ([14]); Dupont v. Quebec Steamship Co. ([15]) Great Western Railway Co. of Canada v. Braid ([16]); Scott v. The London and St. Katharine Docks Co. ([17]); Smith v. Baker & Sons ([18]); Meux v. Great Eastern Railway Co. ([19]).

  • 2,387.

    Guerin v. The Manchester Fire Assurance Co. - (1898) 29 SCR 139 - 1898-11-21

    Supreme Court Judgments
    Insurance

    We rely upon Art. 2478 C.C.; Accident Ins. Co. of North America v. Young ([19]); Logan v. Commercial Union Ass. Co. ([20]); Western Assurance Co. v. Doull ([21]); Scott v. Phoǽix Ins. Co. ([22]); Racine v. Equitable Ins. Co. of London ([23]); Simpson v. Caledonian ins.   [...]  The law of England provides that any agreement renouncing the jurisdiction of legally established courses of justice is null but never the less in the case of Scott v. Avery ([35]), the House of Lords determined that a clause of this nature and almost in the same words as that before us making an award a condition   [...]  In England, Scott v. Avery ([41]); Viney v. Bignold ([42]); and cases cited in Anchor Marine Ins. Co. v. Corbett ([43]).

  • 2,388.

    Makins v. Piggott & Inglis - (1898) 29 SCR 188 - 1898-11-21

    Supreme Court Judgments
    Torts

    Co.[1]; Williams v. Eady[2]; Scott v. London and St. Katherine Docks Co.[3] at page 601; Broom’s Legal Maxims 298; Snyder v. Wheeling Electrical Company[4]; Beven on Negligence, 561; Pollock on Texts, (5 ed.) pp. 21-41; Clark v. Chambers[5]; Consolidated Traction Co. v. Scott[6]; Jewson v. Gatti[7]; Dixon v. Bell[8]

  • 2,389.

    The Queen v. Woodburn - (1898) 29 SCR 112 - 1898-11-21

    Supreme Court Judgments
    Contract

    Glengarry Election Case[10]; Re Oliver & Scott's Arbitration[11]. Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick Q.C. (Solicitor General of Canada), and Newcombe Q.C (Deputy of the Minister of Justice), contra.

  • 2,390.

    Boultbee v. Gzowski - (1898) 29 SCR 54 - 1898-10-13

    Supreme Court Judgments
    Agency

    H.J. Scott Q.C. for the appellant. The contract in this case may be summarized as being an offer by one party of a price for the stock and an acceptance by the other.

  • 2,391.

    The North-West Electric C. v. Walsh - (1898) 29 SCR 33 - 1898-10-13

    Supreme Court Judgments
    Commercial law

    A misapprehension of the law by the Legislature does not make that the law which it has erroneously, assumed the law to be: Earl of Shrewsbury v. Scott (3) at page 53.   [...]  The Earl of Shrewsbury v. Scott ([42]). In the second place the by-laws and resolutions are bad because, assuming the proviso to authorize the issue of stock below par, the issue in the present case was not confirmed at any annual or special meeting of the company.

  • 2,392.

    Heiminck v. The Municipality of the Town of Edmonton - (1898) 28 SCR 501 - 1898-06-14

    Supreme Court Judgments
    Municipal law

    The case was tried in the Supreme Court for the North-west Territories, District of Northern Alberta, before Scott J., who dismissed the plaintiff's action with costs and this decision was affirmed by the full court, sitting en banc, Rouleau J. dissenting.   [...]  As to the question of dedication, the trial judge, (Scott J.), held that the evidence was not sufficient to establish a dedication.   [...]  It was a question for the trial judge, (Scott J.) who distinctly held that there was no evidence of any intention to dedicate on the part of the patentee.

  • 2,393.

    Murray v. Jenkins - (1898) 28 SCR 565 - 1898-06-14

    Supreme Court Judgments
    Sale

    The statute of frauds cannot be relied upon by the appellant, as it has not been pleaded; Filby v. Hounsell[11], and cases there cited; Commins v. Scott[12], at page 16.

  • 2,394.

    SCR | RCS (1898) vol 28 - 1898-06-14

    Canada Supreme Court Reports

    L. R. 4 H. L. 171 • Harman v. Scott • 2 Johnston's N.Z. Rep. 407 277 Harper v. Charlesworth • 4 B. & C. 574 .   [...]  WILSON. John J. Scott for the respondents, the W. E. San-ford Manufacturing Company.   [...]  Solicitors for the respondents, The W. E. Sanford Manufacturing Company : Scott, Lees 4.

  • 2,395.

    Ostrom v. Sills - (1898) 28 SCR 485 - 1898-05-14

    Supreme Court Judgments
    Property law

    At one time there was an occasional accession of water from an overflow, in times of freshet, of a pond situate on the corner of Albert and Scott Streets some distance to the north and west of the corner of King and Mill Streets, but this was cut off about the year 1890, by a drain constructed by the municipality.

  • 2,396.

    MacKenzie v. Building & Loan Association - (1898) 28 SCR 407 - 1898-05-06

    Supreme Court Judgments
    Priorities and hypothecs

    Scott Q.C. and Allan Cassels for the respondents. McKenzie acquired the fee as assignee of the equity of redemption and thus enlarged the estate for the benefit of the mortgagee.

  • 2,397.

    Goodwin v. The Queen - (1898) 28 SCR 273 - 1898-03-08

    Supreme Court Judgments
    Contract

    See Hudson on Building Contracts (2 ed.) pp. 294, 299; Harmon v. Scott[8]; Clarke v. Murray[9]; Galbraith v. Chicago Architectural Iron Works[10]; Rousseau v. Poitras[11]; Wykcoff v. Meyers[12], at pages 145, 146; McGreevy v. The Queen (3), at page 405.   [...]  In Harman v. Scott[35] the contract provided for progress payments, and also that the balance of the stipulated price should be paid by the proprietor to the contractor within fourteen

  • 2,398.

    Bank of Hamilton v. Halstead - (1897) 28 SCR 235 - 1897-12-09

    Supreme Court Judgments
    Financial institutions

    John J. Scott for the appellant. The renewal of a note and taking of a new assignment, giving up the old assignment which was good until surrendered is clearly a “negotiating” within the meaning of the Bank Act. Bank of Hamilton v. Noye Manufacturing Co.[3] at page 637; Foster et al v. Bowes[4].   [...]  Solicitors for the appellants: Scott, Lees & Hobson. Solicitors for the respondent: Gibbons, Mulkern & Harper.

  • 2,399.

    Lewis v. Wilson - (1897) 28 SCR 207 - 1897-12-09

    Supreme Court Judgments
    Contract

    John J. Scott for the respondents, the W.E. Sanford Manufacturing Company.   [...]  Mr. Scott, who was aware of all the circumstances, had not given Mr. Wilson any further information upon the subject than I have stated, Mr. Wilson having the fullest confidence that so far as he was concerned, Mr. Scott’s assurance that he would be fully protected was all that was necessary.   [...]  Solicitors for the respondents, The W.E. Sanford Manufacturing Company: Scott, Lees & Hobson.

  • 2,400.

    SCR | RCS (1897) vol 26 - 1897-01-25

    Canada Supreme Court Reports

    Cro. El. 533 131 Leask v. Scott . 2 Q. B. D. 376 411 Leather Cloth Co. v. Hieronimus .   [...]  • Schwersenski v. Vineberg • Scott v. Avery - . Sefton v. Hopwood . • Séguin v. City of Quebec Sénésac v. Central Vermont Ry. Co. Sewell v. Musson .   [...]  Scott v. Avery (8) ; Dawson v. Fitzg.erald.(9) ; ,Central Vermont v. Soper .