Advanced Search
- All Databases (4,782)
- Decisions (2,369)
- Resources (2,169)
4,782 result(s)
-
4,101.
Hughes v. Northern Electric and Manufacturing Co. - (1915) 50 SCR 626 - 1915-02-02
Supreme Court JudgmentsCommercial law
William Hughes and Another (Defendants) Appellants; and The Northern Electric and Manufacturing Company and Others (Plaintiffs) Respondents. [...] On motion the transfer of the stock of William Graem Mackechnie and William Hughes to Joseph Montgomery of $333,320 is hereby authorized and accepted. [...] On motion the transfer of one share by C.A. Bleecker to W.R. Williams, and one share from J.F. Wills to H.P. Edge was authorized and accepted.
-
4,102.
Phelan v. Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Co. - (1915) 51 SCR 113 - 1915-02-02
Supreme Court JudgmentsTransportation
This car formed part of a train made up at Fort William, in Ontario, but how long before the nineteenth of January, on the evening of which it came into the Melville yard, no one seems to know, or, indeed, to have cared. [...] There was ample evidence before the jury from which men of sense exercising common local knowledge might well have said all these things might, from its history, have happened to this car since it had got placed in train No. 91 at Fort William.
-
4,103.
SCR | RCS (1915) vol 50 - 1915-02-02
Canada Supreme Court ReportsSolicitor for the respondent : William Johnston. (1) [1908] A.C. 493. 16 1 / 2 [...] 626 SUPREME COURT OF CANADA. [VOL. L. 1914 WILLIAM HUGHES AND ANOTHER APPELLANTS; Nov. 19, 20. [...] On motion the transfer of the stock of William 'Graem Mac-kechnie and William Hughes to Joseph Montgomery of $333,320 is hereby authorized and accepted.
-
4,104.
The "A.L. Smith" and "Chinook" v. Ontario Gravel Freighting Co. - (1915) 51 SCR 39 - 1915-02-02
Supreme Court JudgmentsMaritime law
I have read the comments upon these decisions in the introduction to Williams and Bruce, Admiralty Practice, but whatever view may be taken by a court competent to reconsider the principles laid down by the Admiralty Courts of England as to Admiralty practice I think a proper deference to the opinions upon the points in [...] (But see the discussion of this question in the introduction to the third edition of Williams and Bruce on Admiralty Jurisdiction, at p. 18 et seq.) [...] See cases noted in Piggott on Foreign Judgments, 3rd ed., pp. 407-411; Re Morrison[65], and see Williams & Bruce Admiralty Jur. (1902) p. 86.
-
4,105.
Campbell Ford, Lake Ontario and Western Rway. Co. v. Massie - (1914) 50 SCR 409 - 1914-11-30
Supreme Court JudgmentsExpropriation
Justice Williams in the case of Re Hammond and Waterton[13], at p. 809.
-
4,106.
Morgan v. Dominion Permanent Loan Co. - (1914) 50 SCR 485 - 1914-11-30
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
Williams, some years later, left for parts unknown and (up to the trial) had not since been found. [...] Leighton, still later, is sworn by a clerk of his, who succeeded Williams, to have been much worried over some crooked dealings he had got into, either through Williams or otherwise, and ultimately died of brain disease in an asylum. [...] The applications for shares and for loan were apparently filled up by Williams.
-
4,107.
Canadian Northern Ontario Rway Co. v. Holditch - (1914) 50 SCR 265 - 1914-10-13
Supreme Court JudgmentsExpropriation
By this award the majority arbitrators awarded the respondent William Ernest Holditch the sum of $5,315 for the lands entirely taken by the railway. [...] The majority arbitrators found as a fact appearing on the face of the award that the following additional lands of William Ernest Holditch, namely, lots (numbers), in the subdivision, [...] As a result of the judgment in the Fort William Case12, the “Railway Act” was amended so as to enable the adjacent abutting land-owners to receive compensation when the railway passes along or across a street.
-
4,108.
Cartwright v. City of Toronto - (1914) 50 SCR 215 - 1914-06-19
Supreme Court JudgmentsTaxation
Solicitor for the respondent: William Johnston. [1] 29 Ont. L.R. 73.
-
4,109.
Mathewson v. Burns - (1914) 50 SCR 115 - 1914-06-19
Supreme Court JudgmentsProperty law
William A. Burns (Defendant) Respondent. 1914: June 2, 19. Present: Sir Charles Fitzpatrick C.J. and Idington, Duff, Anglin and Brodeur JJ.
-
4,110.
Beamish v. Richardson & Sons - (1914) 49 SCR 595 - 1914-05-18
Supreme Court JudgmentsSecurities
William E. Beamish (Defendant) Appellant; and James Richardson & Sons, Limited (Plaintiffs) Respondents.
-
4,111.
SCR | RCS (1914) vol 49 - 1914-05-18
Canada Supreme Court ReportsBrowning v. Morris (1) , at page 793, per Lord Mans-field; Williams v. Hedley (2) . [...] 360 SUPREME COURT OF CANADA. [VOL. XLIX. 1913 WILLIAM H. SNELL (PLAINTIFF) . . .. [...] VOL. XLIX.] SUPREME COURT OF CANADA. 595 WILLIAM E. BEAMISH (DEFEND-1914 APPELLANT ; ANT) Feb. 13,14.
-
4,112.
Hitchcock v. Sykes - (1914) 49 SCR 403 - 1914-03-23
Supreme Court JudgmentsSale
See also the judgment of Vaughan Williams L.J., at pp. 253-4. Indeed, while I do not rest my judgment on such a finding, from the facts established it would seem to be a legitimate inference that, when closing the transaction with Webster in the solicitor’s office at Cornwall, the Hitchcocks were aware that he was ignorant
-
4,113.
The King v. Trudel - (1914) 49 SCR 501 - 1914-03-02
Supreme Court JudgmentsExpropriation
The law of Canada as regards the principles upon which compensation for land taken was to be awarded was the same as the law of England, and it has been explained in numerous cases— nowhere with greater precision than in the case of In re Lucas and Chesterfield Gas and Water Board[2], where Lord Justices Vaughan Williams
-
4,114.
British Columbia Electric Railway Co. v. Turner - (1914) 49 SCR 470 - 1914-02-23
Supreme Court JudgmentsAction
Co. (2 B. & S. 759; 4 B. & S. 396); Williams v. Mersey Docks and Harbour Board ((1905), 1 K.B. 804); Erdman v. Walkerton (20 Ont. App. R. 444), and Johnson v. Grand Trunk Rway. [...] Co. (19 Ont. App. R. 693); Markey v. Tolworth Joint Isolation Hospital District ((1900) 2 K.B. 454), and Williams v. Mersey Dock and Harbour Board ( (1905) 1 K.B. 804), referred to. [...] Railway Co.[3]; Griffiths v. Earl of Dudley[4] ; Williams v. Mersey Docks and Harbour Board[5].
-
4,115.
Snell v. Brickles - (1914) 49 SCR 360 - 1914-02-23
Supreme Court JudgmentsSale
William H. Snell (Plaintiff) Appellant; and Charlotte Brickles, Executor of The Estate of Isaac Brickles, Deceased (Defendant) Respondent. [...] edition of Dart, Vendors and Purchasers, or in Williams’ Vendors and Purchasers, or in Halsbury under Specific Performance or Sale of Land and in Talbot and Fort’s Index only two references are noted, both in 1900, it was not mentioned either in Wallis v. Smith[14] or in Howe v. Smith[15] was correctly appreciated (i.e., in [...] On the 20th February, 1912, by accepting a written offer of purchase from William H. Snell, Isaac Brickles agreed to sell to him, for $7,500, certain land in the Township of Scarborough.
-
4,116.
Townsend v. Northern Crown Bank - (1914) 49 SCR 394 - 1914-02-23
Supreme Court JudgmentsFinancial institutions
Sir William Meredith C.J., who tried this action, was of the opinion that [...] Solicitor for the appellant: William Laidlaw. Solicitors for the respondents: Arnoldi & Grierson.
-
4,117.
Doran v. Jewell - (1914) 49 SCR 88 - 1914-02-03
Supreme Court JudgmentsAppeal
Williams v. Irvine (22 Can. S.C.R. 108); Hyde v. Lindsay (29 Can. S.C.R. 99) and Colonial Sugar Refining Co. v. Irving ([1905] A.C. 369) followed. [...] Caldwell, contra, cited Williams v. Irvine[3]; Hyde v. Lindsay[4]; Colonial Sugar Refining Co. v. Irving 2. [...] ANGLIN J.—This motion is concluded adversely to the appellant by the authority of Williams v. Irvine3, and Hyde v. Lindsay4.
-
4,118.
Lapointe v. Messier - (1914) 49 SCR 271 - 1914-02-03
Supreme Court JudgmentsMunicipal law
I do not think the transaction in question here could be brought within the exceptions as stated by Lord Justice Fry, by Sir Frederick Pollock, or by Sir William Anson. [...] Sir William Anson puts it in a slightly different way. He speaks of contracts procured “by strong pressure.” And Sir Frederick Pollock sums up the exceptions as consisting of agreements made in [...] Browning v. Morris[26], at page 793, per Lord Mansfield; Williams v. Hedley[27].
-
4,119.
Wadsworth v. Canadian Railway Accident Ins. Co. - (1914) 49 SCR 115 - 1914-02-03
Supreme Court JudgmentsInsurance
See William Hamilton Mfg. Co. v. Victoria Lumber and Mfg. Co.[8] Hellmuth K.C. and McConnell for the respondents referred to Mendl v. Ropner & Co.[9], and contended that the finding of the trial concurred in by both appellate courts below must be accepted, and being accepted the judgment in appeal must stand. [...] As put by Watkin Williams J., in the Lawrence Case[41]:— It is essential * * * that it should be made out that the fit was a cause in the sense of being the proximate and immediate cause of the death before the company are exonerated.
-
4,120.
SCR | RCS (1914) vol 48 - 1914-01-01
Canada Supreme Court ReportsCASES DETERMINED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA ON APPEAL FROM DOMINION AND PROVINCIAL COURTS WILLIAM H. MERRITT (PLAINTIFF) . . [...] VOL. XLVIII.] SUPREMECOURT OF CANADA. 497 JAMES ALBERT STEPHENSON, 1913 TENA ISTEPHENSON, WILLIAM *Oct. 14. [...] And this court doth further order and adjudge that the said James Albert Stephenson and William Stephenson do pay to the plaintiff its costs of this action.
-
4,121.
Bell v. Grand Trunk Rway. Co. - (1913) 48 SCR 561 - 1913-12-23
Supreme Court JudgmentsEvidence
Although as a general rule where a plaintiff relies upon the breach by the defendant of a statutory provision which imposes a duty, but contains an exception, he must allege and shew that the defendant is not within the exception, Spieres v. Parker[12], at page 145; Williams v. The East India Co.[13]; Dwarris on Statutes
-
4,122.
McPhee v. Esquimalt and Nanaimo Ry. Co. - (1913) 49 SCR 43 - 1913-11-24
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
In Williams v. Birmingham Battery and Metal Co.[12], Lord Justice A. L. Smith says, at page 344, that the defence summarized by the maxim volenti non fit injuria is that the employee has [...] In Williams' Case[21], it is expressly stated by Romer L.J., at page 345, that the circumstance that the servant has entered: [...] The same view is expressed by Romer L.J. in Williams v. The Birmingham Battery and Metal Co.[24]:
-
4,123.
Como v. Herron - (1913) 49 SCR 1 - 1913-11-10
Supreme Court JudgmentsSecurities
William Stewart Herron (Plaintiff) Respondent 1913: October 14, 15; 1913: November 10.
-
4,124.
Stephenson v. Gold Medal Furniture Mfg. Co. - (1913) 48 SCR 497 - 1913-10-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsAppeal
James Albert Stephenson, Tena Stephenson, William Stephenson and Margaret Stephenson (Defendants) [...] In the trial court judgment was awarded against two of the defendants, James Albert Stephenson and William Stephenson, in these terms:— [...] And this court doth further order and adjudge that the said James Albert Stephenson and William Stephenson do pay to the plaintiff its costs of this action.
-
4,125.
In Re Companies - (1913) 48 SCR 331 - 1913-10-14
Supreme Court JudgmentsConstitutional law
“A large admission” Lord Herschell called it in a subsequent case; page 168 of the stenographer’s note of the argument in the Liquor Prohibition Appeal, printed in 1895 by William Brown & Co. He relied on the machinery for bringing the Act into force as shewing that the subject was dealt with as a local matter.