Advanced Search
- All Databases (4,782)
- Decisions (2,369)
- Resources (2,169)
4,782 result(s)
-
4,051.
Geall v. Dominion Creosoting Co. / Salter v. Dominion Creosoting Co. - (1917) 55 SCR 587 - 1917-10-15
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
One of them, as stated by Vaughan-Williams L.J. at p. 337 I take to be this that [...] On the contrary, Lord Macnaghten, in the former case, with whose opinion Lord Loreburn concurred, approved expressly of the opinions expressed by Romer & Sterling L.JJ. in McDowall v. Great Western Rly. Co.,8 which, as I read them, are in full accord with those of Vaughan-Williams from which I have quoted.
-
4,052.
Grace v. Kuebler and Brunner - (1917) 56 SCR 1 - 1917-10-09
Supreme Court JudgmentsSale
In merely making their payments, they were not persons subsequently dealing with it to whom registration in the interval would be notice; Gilleland v. Wadsworth[11]; Williams v. Sorrell[12].
-
4,053.
Toronto General Trusts Corp. v. The King - (1917) 56 SCR 26 - 1917-10-09
Supreme Court JudgmentsTaxation
The decision In the estate of Sir William Clark[29], is instructive and closely in point.
-
4,054.
Chalmers v. Machray - (1917) 55 SCR 612 - 1917-06-22
Supreme Court JudgmentsSale
Tilley K.C. and E. K. Williams for the respondents [1] 26 Man. R. 105
-
4,055.
Rosborough v. Trustees of St. Andrew's Church - (1917) 55 SCR 360 - 1917-06-22
Supreme Court JudgmentsEstates
See also Smith's Equity Jurisprudence in the chapter on Election at page 137 and following pages, and Williams on Executors, 10th ed., page 1030.
-
4,056.
Upper Canada College v. The City of Toronto - (1917) 55 SCR 433 - 1917-06-22
Supreme Court JudgmentsTaxation
Solicitor for the respondent: William Johnston. [1] 37 Ont. L.R. 665.
-
4,057.
The City of Toronto v. J.F. Brown Co. - (1917) 55 SCR 153 - 1917-05-02
Supreme Court JudgmentsMunicipal law
The recent case of Grand Trunk Pacific Ry. Co. v. Fort William Land Co.[24], determined by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on the proper construction of the “Dominion Railway Act, 1906,” secs. 47, 15 and 237(3), seems to me to apply the same principles to the construction of our Railway Act as have been applied [...] In other words, the Board could not by an order authorizing the location of the road along certain streets in the City of Fort William extend the compensation clauses beyond the matters specifically referred to in the statute, and that the “location” of the road was not one of those matters. [...] Solicitor of the appellant: William Johnston. Solicitors for the respondents: Macdonald, Shepley, Donald & Mason.
-
4,058.
In Re "Horlick's" - (1917) 64 SCR 466 - 1917-05-01
Supreme Court JudgmentsIntellectual property
The Weekly Notes and Law Times come to, hand since this appeal was heard, contain notes of the decision of Mr. Justice Neville in Re William Crawford & Sons[3], where he held the application for registration should not proceed by reason of the name being a common one.
-
4,059.
Murphy v. The King - (1917) 55 SCR 550 - 1917-03-22
Supreme Court JudgmentsMines and minerals
James William Murphy and Robert Sedgwick Gould (Defendants) Appellants;
-
4,060.
Marshall Brick Co. v. York Farmers Colonization Co. - (1917) 54 SCR 569 - 1917-02-19
Supreme Court JudgmentsPriorities and hypothecs
See Graham v. Williams[3]; Blight v. Ray[4]; West v. Elkins[5]; Gearing v. Robinson[6]; Orr v. Robertson2. [...] Graham v. Williams[17]; Gearing v. Robinson[18]; Slattery v. Lillis[19] at page 703; Quinn v. Leathem[20], at page 506. [...] This case is distinguished from the case of Graham v. Williams[30], much relied upon by the respondents; because in that case the builder or the intended purchaser never obligated himself to build, it was purely and simply a case of the owner permitting his lessee to erect some buildings and to advance him some money.
-
4,061.
SCR | RCS (1917) vol 54 - 1917-02-19
Canada Supreme Court ReportsS.C.R. VOL. LIV.] TABLE OF CASES CITED. NAME dF CASE. Graham v. Williams 8 O.R. 478; 9 O.R. 458 Grand Rapids, City of, v. Grand Rapids Hydraulic Co Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Co. v Fort William Investment Co... [...] The action was tried at Toronto by Sir William Mulock, C.J., with a jury. [...] Solicitor for the appellant: William Johnston. Solicitor for respondent Ada Lambert: Henry C. Forster.
-
4,062.
Boyd v. Attorney-General of British Columbia - (1917) 54 SCR 532 - 1917-02-06
Supreme Court JudgmentsEstates
DAVIES J. (dissenting).—The question to be determined on this appeal is whether the share or interest of Mossom Martin Boyd, deceased, in certain real estate situate in British Columbia standing at his death in his name and in that of his partner William T. C. Boyd, is liable for succession duties under the "Succession [...] These lands had been acquired and registered in the names of the said Mossom Martin Boyd and his said brother William Thorncroft Cust Boyd and were held as partnership property. [...] DUFF J.—The Mossom Boyd Company was a firm composed of two members, Mossom Boyd and William Boyd, carrying on (inter alia) a lumber business with its head office at Bobcaygeon in Ontario.
-
4,063.
Dominion Creosoting Co. v. Nickson Co - (1917) 55 SCR 303 - 1917-02-06
Supreme Court JudgmentsCommercial law
William Brandt's Sons & Co. v. Dunlop Rubber Co.[7]; Comfort v. Betts [8]; Hughes v. Pumphouse Hotel Co. [9].
-
4,064.
Toronto Suburban Rway. Co. v. Everson - (1917) 54 SCR 395 - 1917-02-06
Supreme Court JudgmentsExpropriation
The appellants’ railway is not to be constructed upon a public highway, as was the case in Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Co. v. Fort William Land Investment Co.[40], referred to by Mr. Henderson.
-
4,065.
City of Toronto v. Lambert - (1916) 54 SCR 200 - 1916-12-30
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
The action was tried at Toronto by Sir William Mulock, C.J., with a jury. [...] Solicitor for the appellant: William Johnston. Solicitor for respondent Ada Lambert: Henry C. Forster.
-
4,066.
Belanger v. The King - (1916) 54 SCR 265 - 1916-12-11
Supreme Court JudgmentsTransportation
Co. v. Fort William Land Investment Co.[2]. It is not, however, necessary to pass upon that question.
-
4,067.
Jamieson v. Edmonton (City) - (1916) 54 SCR 443 - 1916-12-11
Supreme Court JudgmentsMunicipal law
In the case of Maguire v. Liverpool Corporation[4], Vaughan-Williams L.J. asserts the same general rule as do Farwell and Kennedy L.JJ. in the Bingley Case3, and treats the immunity of the authority in respect to the non-repair of highways as an exception due to the particular history of the highways.
-
4,068.
Leamy v. The King - (1916) 54 SCR 143 - 1916-11-07
Supreme Court JudgmentsMaritime law
The appellants contend that the portion of the bed of the river which is in question passed to their predecessors in title, by the grants to Caleb Brooks in 1860 and 1865, and that to William Brooks in 1891.
-
4,069.
McKee v. Philip - (1916) 55 SCR 286 - 1916-10-30
Supreme Court JudgmentsSale
William Philip (Defendant) Respondent. 1916: October 17; 1916: October 30.
-
4,070.
Canadian Northern Railway Co. v. Pszenicnzy - (1916) 54 SCR 36 - 1916-10-16
Supreme Court JudgmentsTransportation
Williams, L.J., at page 13. The limitation applies only to actions brought in respect of injuries caused directly, and not indirectly, by the construction or operation of the road, and is not intended to apply to suits founded upon injuries to civil rights unconnected with railway legislation in its true sense.
-
4,071.
Gillies v. Brown - (1916) 53 SCR 557 - 1916-06-24
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
A.—Prior to the payment of this 4th December to William Hill. 103. Q.—Well, did you agree to that?
-
4,072.
Ingersoll Telephone Co. v. Bell Telephone Co. of Canada - (1916) 53 SCR 583 - 1916-06-24
Supreme Court JudgmentsTransportation
The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Co. v. City of Fort William[4], where the Board, on an application to run over a public street, imposed the condition that the adjoining owners on the street should be compensated.
-
4,073.
SCR | RCS (1916) vol 53 - 1916-06-24
Canada Supreme Court Reports18 SUPREME COURT OF CANADA. [VOL. LIII. 1915 WILLIAM ROCHE (DEFENDANT) APPELLANT; *Nov. 4. [...] Whether the goodwill of the business of Wood, Vallance & Co. enures to the benefit of the estate of the said William Vallance, as well as to the surviving partner, the said William A. Wood. 3. [...] VOL. LIII.] SUPREME COURT OF CANADA. 431 WILLIAM W. JONES (DEFENDANT) ...
-
4,074.
Jones v. Tucker - (1916) 53 SCR 431 - 1916-06-19
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
William W. Jones (Defendant) Appellant; and Henry C. Tucker (Plaintiff) Respondent [...] Anglin J.—By an agreement in writing, dated the 12th day of December, 1913, the defendant William W. Jones agreed to sell to the plaintiff the whole of section 17, in township 4 and range 3, west of the second meridian, in the Province of Saskatchewan, in consideration of the sum of $22,800, payable, as to $16,000 thereof,
-
4,075.
Olmstead v. The King - (1916) 53 SCR 450 - 1916-06-19
Supreme Court JudgmentsPublic utilities
Howard Herbert Victor Olmstead and William Atchison Olmstead (Suppliants) Appellants;