Advanced Search
- All Databases (1,254)
- Decisions (530)
- Resources (724)
1,254 result(s)
-
1,051.
SCR | RCS (1915) vol 51 - 1915-06-24
Canada Supreme Court ReportsCaptain Allen, of the "Smith," explains that the steering apparatus of the "Chinook"
-
1,052.
SCR | RCS (1915) vol 50 - 1915-02-02
Canada Supreme Court ReportsThe action was brought, against the Theatre Amusement Company, Barney Allen, Julius Allen, Jay Junior Allen and a partnership firm known as The Canadian Film Exchange, by the present respond- * PRESENT : —Sir Charles Fitzpatrick C.J. and Idington, Duff, Anglin and Brodeur JJ. (1) 25 West. [...] The firm had, both before and after the respondent's retirement, sold goods to the appellant corporation, of which the-Allens were the directors. [...] (2) 7 Allen (Mass.) 125. (6) 16 Ch. D. 484. (3) 3 C.P.D. 52. (7) [1900] 1 Ch. 412.
-
1,053.
The "A.L. Smith" and "Chinook" v. Ontario Gravel Freighting Co. - (1915) 51 SCR 39 - 1915-02-02
Supreme Court JudgmentsMaritime law
Captain Allen, of the “Smith,” explains that the steering apparatus of the “Chinook”
-
1,054.
Belanger v. Montreal Water and Power Co. - (1914) 50 SCR 356 - 1914-10-13
Supreme Court JudgmentsMunicipal law
The principle of this arrêt was applied in Allen & Curry Manufacturing Co. v. Shreveport Waterworks Co.[16], to a contract not
-
1,055.
Long v. Toronto Rway. Co. - (1914) 50 SCR 224 - 1914-06-19
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
If he had been he would certainly, in view of the speed at which the car was moving at the time, have got safely across, Charles Allen, who saw the accident, says:— [...] The evidence of Charles Allen, apparently an independent witness and the only person other than the motorman who seems to have seen the deceased come upon the track, is as follows:— [...] Assuming the latter to be the correct view, upon the evidence of Charles Allen it is clear that the deceased, after stepping upon the track and an instant or two
-
1,056.
Pearson v. Adams - (1914) 50 SCR 204 - 1914-06-19
Supreme Court JudgmentsSale
[5] 7 Allen (Mass.) 125. [6] 3 C.P.D. 52. [7] [1900] 2 Ch. 388. [8] 7 Ch. App. 699.
-
1,057.
Bergklint v. Western Canada Power Co. - (1914) 50 SCR 39 - 1914-06-01
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
But this passage was construed in Allen v. The New Gas Company[15] (by the Court of Exchequer, Bramwell, Amphlett and Huddleston, BB., at p. 256), as laying down the rule that the owner must provide all that is necessary
-
1,058.
Theatre Amusement Co. v. Stone - (1914) 50 SCR 32 - 1914-05-18
Supreme Court JudgmentsCommercial law
The action was brought,. against the Theatre Amusement Company, Barney Allen, Julius Allen, Jay Junior Allen and a partnership firm known as The Canadian Film Exchange, by the present respon- [...] IDINGTON J.—The respondent and the three defendants, named Allen, owned in equal shares the corporate appellant and composed the partnership firm known as The Canadian Film Exchange.
-
1,059.
SCR | RCS (1913) vol 47 - 1913-05-06
Canada Supreme Court ReportsIt is impossible to say what effect such as direction may have had in bringing the jury to their conclusion : Rex v. Everest (5) ; Allen v. The King (6) . [...] (2) 8 Allen (Mass.) 27. (5) 205 Mass. 303. (3) 4 Q.B.D. 462. (6) 12 Q.B.D. 176. [...] Allen v. The King (5) . Newcombe K.C. for the Attorney-General of Nova Scotia discussed the evidence in regard to the res gestœ, and referred to 1 Hawk.
-
1,060.
Graves v The King - (1913) 47 SCR 568 - 1913-02-24
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
Allen v. The King[14]. Newcombe K.C. for the Attorney-General of Nova Scotia discussed the evidence in regard to the res gestœ, and referred to 1 Hawk.
-
1,061.
Pickles v. China Mutual Ins. Co. - (1913) 47 SCR 429 - 1913-02-18
Supreme Court JudgmentsInsurance
[5] 8 Allen (Mass.) 27. [6] 4 Q.B.D. 462. [7] 119 Mass. 45, at p. 51.
-
1,062.
Eberts v. The King - (1912) 47 SCR 1 - 1912-10-07
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
It is impossible to say what effect such a direction may have had in bringing the jury to their conclusion: Rex v. Everest[19].; Allen v. The King[20].
-
1,063.
SCR | RCS (1912) vol 46 - 1912-10-07
Canada Supreme Court ReportsTABLE OF CASES CITED. A. NAME OFCASE. Adamson v. Rogers Allen v. Flood Attorney-General v. Stewart 2 Attorney-General of Canada v. Attorneys-General of Ontario, .. [...] The doctrine of Allen v. Flood (1) might also help in conceivable circumstances to lend an appearance of legality to that which would thwart the operation of this Act and in such cases may have to be discarded. [...] W. N. Tilley and T. R. Allen for the respondent. VOL: XLVI.] SUPREME COURT OF CANADA. 633 DOMINION LINEN MFG. CO. y. LANGLEY. 1911 127..
-
1,064.
In re Marriage Laws - (1912) 46 SCR 132 - 1912-06-17
Supreme Court JudgmentsConstitutional law
the fact that he was a member of the Government when, speaking for the Government, the then Minister of Justice, Sir Allen Aylesworth, said the Dominion Parliament was not competent to pass such legislation.
-
1,065.
SCR | RCS (1912) vol 45 - 1912-03-21
Canada Supreme Court ReportsCon-mee v. Securities Holding Co. (2), at pages 609, 613; Rothschild v. Allen (3) . [...] Douglas v. Carpenter(2) ; Strickland v. Magoun (3) ; Rothschild v. Allen (4) . [...] In Allen v. Seekham (2), I pointed out that the doctrine is a dangerous one.
-
1,066.
Weidman v. Shragge - (1912) 46 SCR 1 - 1912-03-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
The doctrine of Allen v. Flood[14] might also help in conceivable circumstances to lend an appearance of legality to that which would thwart the operation of this Act and in such cases may have to be discarded.
-
1,067.
McKillop & Benjafield v. Alexander - (1912) 45 SCR 551 - 1912-02-20
Supreme Court JudgmentsProperty law
In Allen v. Seclcham[18], I pointed out that the doctrine is a dangerous one.
-
1,068.
The King v. Cotton - (1912) 45 SCR 469 - 1912-02-20
Supreme Court JudgmentsConstitutional law
[43]. See Mager v. Grima[44]; Coe v. Errol[45]; Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Pennsylvania[46]; Magoun v. Illinois Trust and Savings Bank[47]; New Orleans v. Stemple[48]; Bristol v. Washington County[49]; and for state decisions Matter of Estate of Romaine[50]; Callahan v. Woodbridge[51]; Greves v. Shaw[52]; Allen v. National
-
1,069.
Toronto Construction Co. v. Strati - (1911) 46 SCR 631 - 1911-12-06
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
W.N. Tilley and T.R. Allen for the respondent. [1] 19 Ont. W.R. 88.
-
1,070.
Clarke v. Baillie - (1911) 45 SCR 50 - 1911-10-03
Supreme Court JudgmentsSecurities
Conmee v. Securities Holding Co.[19], at pages 609, 613; Rothschild v. Allen[20]. [...] Douglas v. Carpenter[47]; Strickland v. Magoun[48]; Rothschild v. Allen[49].
-
1,071.
SCR | RCS (1911) vol 44 - 1911-08-04
Canada Supreme Court ReportsVOL. XLIV.] SUPREME COURT OF CANADA. 331 THOMAS ALLEN APPELLANT; 1911 AND *March 28. [...] ALLEN V. McKay K.C. for the respondent. THE KING. The Chief Justice. [...] ALLEN v. tance towards his place of business when Tns KING. 331 he collapsed and was taken home in a cab.
-
1,072.
Allen v. The King - (1911) 44 SCR 331 - 1911-03-31
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
Allen v. The King, , (1911) 44 SCR 331 Supreme Court of Canada Allen v. The King, (1911) 44 S.C.R. 331 [...] Thomas Allen Appellant; and His Majesty The King Respondent. 1911: March 28, 31. [...] The argument advanced before us that counsel was entitled in this way to test the credibility of Allen, cannot, in my opinion, be accepted.
-
1,073.
SCR | RCS (1911) vol 43 - 1911-01-01
Canada Supreme Court ReportsJUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA DURING THE PERIOD OF THESE REPORTS. The Right Hon. SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK C. J., K.C.M.G. " DESIRE GIROUARD J. " SIR LOUIS HENRY DAVIES J., K.C.M.G. " JOHN IDINGTON J. " LYMAN POORE DUFF J. " FRANCIS ALEXANDER ANGLIN J. ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE DOMINION OF CANADA: The Hon. SIR ALLEN [...] XV. TABLE OF CASES CITED. A. NAME OF CASE. WHERE REPORTED. PAGE Abrahams v. The Queen 6 Can. S.C.R. 10 441 Ainslie Mining & Railway Co.1 v. McDougall f 42 Can. S.C.R. 420 496 Alcock v. Cooke 5 Bing. 340 94 Allen v. Canadian Pacific Rail- i way Co. f _10 Ont. L.R. 510 7 Almour v. Cable 31 L.C. Jur. 157 194 Alton v. [...] VOL. XLIII.] SUPREME COURT OF CANADA. 7 ton, Grimsby and Beamsville Electric Railway Co. (1), 1910 and more recently by Riddell J. in Allen v. Canadian BRITISH COLUMBIA Pacific Railway Co. (2) .
-
1,074.
SCR | RCS (1910) vol 42 - 1910-03-04
Canada Supreme Court ReportsJUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA DURING THE PERIOD OF THESE REPORTS. The Right Hon. SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK C.J., K.C.M.G. " DÉSIRE GIROUARD J. " SIR LOUIS HENRY DAVIES J., K.C.M.G. " JOHN IDINGTON J. " LYMAN POORE DUFF J. " FRANCIS ALEXANDER ANGLIN J. ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE DOMINION OF CANADA: The Hon. ALLEN BRISTOL
-
1,075.
British Columbia Electric Railway Co. v. Crompton - (1910) 43 SCR 1 - 1910-02-15
Supreme Court JudgmentsStatutes
ton, Grimsby and Beamsville Electric Railway Co.[2], and more recently by Riddell J. in Allen v. Canadian Pacific Railway Co[3].