Advanced Search
- All Databases (1,254)
- Decisions (530)
- Resources (724)
1,254 result(s)
-
1,026.
Page v. Campbell - (1921) 61 SCR 633 - 1921-03-11
Supreme Court JudgmentsAction
The decision in the case of London County Council v. Allen[1], seems conclusively to restrict the right recognized in Tulk v. Moxhay[2], and asserted by appellant herein to enforce such a covenant to one who owns part of the land in question. [...] This is a case in which we should refuse to apply the principles laid down in the cases of Formby v. Barker[6]; London County Council v. Allen[7]; Milbourn v. Lyons[8], relied upon by the respondent, because in those cases the plaintiff had no interest in any land situate near the one in dispute. [...] The answer is that having disposed of all land in the subdivision, he is without interest to enforce the covenant, and that therefore the doctrine of Tulk v. Moxhay10, does not apply; London County Council v. Allen[11]; Milbourn v. Lyons[12].
-
1,027.
SCR | RCS (1921) vol 61 - 1921-03-11
Canada Supreme Court ReportsThe decision in the case of London County Council v. Allen (1), seems conclusively to restrict the right recognized in Tulk v. Moxhay (2), and asserted by appellant herein to enforce such a covenant to one who owns part of the land in question. [...] This is a case in which we should refuse to apply the principles laid down in the cases of Formby v. Barker (1); London County Council v. Allen (2); Milbourn v. Lyons (3), relied upon by the respondent, because in those cases the plaintiff had no interest in any land situate near the one in dispute. [...] The answer is that having disposed of all land in the subdivision, he is without interest to enforce the covenant, and that therefore the doctrine of Tulk v. Moxhay (1), does not apply; London County Council v. Allen (2); Milbourn v. Lyons (3).
-
1,028.
SCR | RCS (1920) vol 59 - 1920-01-01
Canada Supreme Court ReportsThe • learned authors of Browne & Allen on Compensation (2 ed., p. 101) suggest that this is because it is the owner's interest in the land that is to be assessed. [...] The English authorities are collected in Browne and Allen on Compensation (2 ed.) ubi sup. and at p. 116; 6 Hals-bury Laws of England, No. 36 and Nos. 49 and 53; and Cripps on Compensation (5 ed.), pp. 107-8 and 146.
-
1,029.
Canadian Pacific Rway. Co., v. Albin Idington J - (1919) 59 SCR 151 - 1919-10-20
Supreme Court JudgmentsTransportation
The learned authors of Browne & Allen on Compensation (2 ed., p. 101) suggest that [...] The English authorities are collected in Browne and Allen on Compensation (2 ed.) ubi sup. and at p. 116; 6 Halsbury Laws of England, No. 36 and Nos. 49 and 53; and Cripps on Compensation (5 ed.), pp. 107-8 and 146.
-
1,030.
SCR | RCS (1919) vol 58 - 1919-05-19
Canada Supreme Court ReportsIt has never been doubted that these rights extended beyond the life of the (1) 12 Allen (Mass.) 459, at p. 461. [...] Allen v. The King (1); Loughead v. Collingwood & Co. (2); Hyndman v. Stephens (3). [...] Chetwynd v. Allen (4), at page 358, per Romer J. (1) 10 C.B. 561, 574.
-
1,031.
Clarkson v. Dominion Bank - (1919) 58 SCR 448 - 1919-03-03
Supreme Court JudgmentsFinancial institutions
Chetwynd v. Allen[21], at page 358, per Romer J. [Page 470] Substitution, like merger, is largely a question of intention.
-
1,032.
Larson v. Boyd - (1919) 58 SCR 275 - 1919-03-03
Supreme Court JudgmentsCivil procedure
Allen v. The King[6]; Loughead v. Collingwood & Co.[7]; Hyndman v. Stephens[8].
-
1,033.
Duchaine v. Matamajaw Salmon Club - (1919) 58 SCR 223 - 1919-02-04
Supreme Court JudgmentsFishery
[14] 12 Allen (Mass.) 459, at p. 461. [15] 5 Bing. N.C. 694.
-
1,034.
SCR | RCS (1919) vol 57 - 1919-02-04
Canada Supreme Court ReportsNeilgherry,} Coffee Plantation Co Jacques-Cartier, La Banque, v. La Banque d'Epargne de la Cité et 13 App. Cas. 111 486 du District de Montréal James v. Allen Jeannotte v. Couillard Q.R. 3 Q.B. 461 286 Jenner v. Jenner L.R. 1 Eq. 361 Joliffe v. Baker Jones v. Tucker Judge v. The Town of Liverpool... 49 N.S. Rep. 513 [...] Allen C.J., with whom BeUNET V. Weldon and Fraser JJ. concurred, said at 164: THE KING. I think the word "absence" in this section does not necessarily Anglin J. mean actual absence from the place or room where the trial is held; but would apply to a case where the justices had, for some cause, become incapable of sitting [...] The uplifting of humanity is a benevolent but not a charitable purpose; James v. Allen (1).
-
1,035.
Cameron v. Church of Christ, Scientist - (1918) 57 SCR 298 - 1918-10-08
Supreme Court JudgmentsEstates
The uplifting of humanity is a benevolent but not a charitable purpose; James v. Allen[11].
-
1,036.
Brunet v. The King - (1918) 57 SCR 83 - 1918-06-25
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
Allen C.J., with whom Weldon and Fraser JJ. concurred, said at 164: I think the word "absence" in this section does not necessarily mean actual absence from the place or room where the trial is held; but would apply to a case where the justices had, for some cause, become incapable of sitting and taking part in the
-
1,037.
SCR | RCS (1918) vol 55 - 1918-01-01
Canada Supreme Court ReportsAmerica Ajum Goolam Hossen & Co. v Union Marine Insurance Co Allen v. Richards 26 Sol. J. 658. [...] I refer to that called "The Molson Macpherson sale," that known as "The Allen sale," and that belonging to the Belanger estate. [...] The first and lastly named seem directly in point though some objections are taken as to the Allen sale, which renders it of less value, yet of very great value, if correctly understood.
-
1,038.
The King v. Hearn - (1917) 55 SCR 562 - 1917-06-22
Supreme Court JudgmentsExpropriation
I refer to that called "The Molson Macpherson sale," that known as "The Allen sale," and that belonging to the Belanger estate. [...] The first and lastly named seem directly in point though some objections are taken as to the Allen sale, which renders it of less value, yet of very great value, if correctly understood.
-
1,039.
SCR | RCS (1917) vol 54 - 1917-02-19
Canada Supreme Court ReportsHolden v. Starks (2) ; Bibb v. Allen (3) ; Wilson v. Mason(4); Amer. & Eng. Encycl. of Law (2 ed.), p. 984. [...] WESTERN CANADA The preparation of the hill from time to time was not POWER a "system" defects in which would entail liability: CO. V. Allen v. New Gas Co. (1). [...] The present case is clearly distinguishable from Langley v. Van Allen(3), relied on by the appellant.
-
1,040.
Hochberger v. Rittenberg - (1916) 54 SCR 480 - 1916-12-30
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
The present case is clearly distinguishable from Langley v. Van Allen[16], relied on by the appellant.
-
1,041.
Western Canada Power Co. v. Bergklint - (1916) 54 SCR 285 - 1916-12-30
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
The preparation of the hill from time to time was not a "system" defects in which would entail liability: Allen v. New Gas Co.[2].
-
1,042.
Kelly v. The King - (1916) 54 SCR 220 - 1916-11-07
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
The view that, by holding that there was ample evidence of some offence and, consequently, no substantial wrong or miscarriage occurred cannot prevail; the court cannot be the judge of what may have influenced the minds of the jury where evidence of an important character was improperly admitted: Allen v. The King[20]; Bray
-
1,043.
Carruthers & Co. v. Schmidt - (1916) 54 SCR 131 - 1916-10-24
Supreme Court JudgmentsSecurities
Holden v. Starks[13]; Bibb v. Allen[14]; Wilson v. Mason[15]; Amer. & Eng. Encycl. of Law (2ed.), p. 984.
-
1,044.
Veronneau v. The King - (1916) 54 SCR 7 - 1916-10-10
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
Rex v. Willmont[19] ; Allen, v. The King[20]. To hold, as was apparently held by one learned judge in the Hayes Case[21], at page 118, that, because the appellant was subsequently convicted by a petit jury at the trial, to which he was compelled to proceed upon the rejection of his motion to quash, it cannot be said that he
-
1,045.
Ingersoll Telephone Co. v. Bell Telephone Co. of Canada - (1916) 53 SCR 583 - 1916-06-24
Supreme Court JudgmentsTransportation
See, too, Brown and Allen on Compensation (2 ed.), p. 97, and authorities cited by both authors.
-
1,046.
SCR | RCS (1916) vol 53 - 1916-06-24
Canada Supreme Court ReportsCo. v. Ander- son Quebec, Montreal and Southern • Railway Co. v. The King Quebec Railway, Light, Heat and Power Co. v. Vandry Queen, The, v. Allen , v. Montminy , v. Yule R. Ramsay v. District of West Van-1 couver. f21 B.C. Rep. 401 Ratcliffe v. Evans [1892] 2 Q.B. 524 Readhead v. Midland Railway Co. L.R. 2 Q.B. 412 477 [...] The Queen v. Allen(7); to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy; Heydon's Case(8), Peek v. North Staffordshire Railway Co. (9) ; to find out what the meaning of the legislature is; and to attach a rational and beneficial meaning, if possible, rather than an irrational and injurious meaning. [...] CO. V. See, too, Brown and Allen on Compensation (2 ed.), p. BELL TELEPHONE 97, and authorities cited by both authors.
-
1,047.
The St. John Lumber Company v. Roy - (1916) 53 SCR 310 - 1916-05-16
Supreme Court JudgmentsAppeal
The Queen v. Allen[27]; to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy; Heydon's Case[28], Peek v. North Staffordshire Railway Co.[29];
-
1,048.
SCR | RCS (1916) vol 52 - 1916-02-21
Canada Supreme Court ReportsQ.R. 36 S.C. 408 Allen v. Furness 20 Ont. App. R. 34 Alston's Estate, in re 28 L.T. (O.S.) 337 Angus v. Heine 42 Can. S.C.R. 416 Appleby v. Myers... [...] Rogers v. Allen (1) ; Attorney-General v. Emerson (2) . The reference in the lease of 1818 to the fact that an adjacent part of the foreshore was then occupied by a boom held by Francis Peabody, Esq., is significant in this connection. [...] According to many authorities language such as that used by the testator does not create a complete trust in the strict sense; Bond v. Dickinson(2) ; Lambe v. Eames (1) ; Mackett v. Mackett (3) ; Allen v. Furness (4) ; Re Shortreed (5) ; Atkinson v. Atkin-son (6) .
-
1,049.
Singer v. Singer - (1916) 52 SCR 447 - 1916-02-01
Supreme Court JudgmentsEstates
According to many authorities language such as that used by the testator does not create a complete trust in the strict sense; Bond v. Dickinson[11]; Lambe v. Eames10; Mackett v. Mackett[12]; Allen v. Furness[13]; Re Shortreed[14]; Atkinson v. Atkinson[15].
-
1,050.
Tweedie v. The King - (1915) 52 SCR 197 - 1915-11-02
Supreme Court JudgmentsProperty law
Rogers v. Allen[30]; Attorney-General v. Emerson[31]. The reference in the lease of 1818 to the fact that an adjacent part of the foreshore was then occupied by a boom held by Francis Peabody, Esq., is significant in this connection.