Advanced Search
- All Databases (4,782)
- Decisions (2,369)
- Resources (2,169)
4,782 result(s)
-
4,126.
Merritt v. City of Toronto - (1913) 48 SCR 1 - 1913-05-06
Supreme Court JudgmentsMaritime law
William H. Merritt (Plaintiff) Appellant; and The City of Toronto (Defendant) Respondent. [...] Solicitor for the respondent: William Johnston. [1] 27 Ont. L.R. 1.
-
4,127.
SCR | RCS (1913) vol 47 - 1913-05-06
Canada Supreme Court ReportsIt may be observed, however, that there is an interesting application of the principle involved in West v. Williams (1), at page 143. [...] VOL. XLVII.] SUPREME COURT OF CANADA. 559 CHARLES WILLIAM CROSS (RE- 1 1913 ) APPELLANT; Feb. 21. [...] At the second trial before Sir William Meredith C.J.C.P., the jury again found for the plaintiff.
-
4,128.
Toronto Railway Co. v. Fleming - (1913) 47 SCR 612 - 1913-05-06
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
William Fleming (Plaintiff) Respondent. 1913: April 8; 1913: May 6. [...] At the second trial before Sir William Meredith C.J.C.P., the jury again found for the plaintiff.
-
4,129.
Chambers v. Canadian Pacific Ry. Co. - (1913) 48 SCR 162 - 1913-04-07
Supreme Court JudgmentsTransportation
Edward Bushnell Chambers and William Robert George Phair Appellants;
-
4,130.
Cross v. Carstairs - (1913) 47 SCR 559 - 1913-02-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsAppeal
Charles William Cross (Respondent) J Appellant; and William Frederick Wallace Carstairs (Petitioner) Respondent
-
4,131.
Pickles v. China Mutual Ins. Co. - (1913) 47 SCR 429 - 1913-02-18
Supreme Court JudgmentsInsurance
J. William Smith (Defendant) Appellant; and The China Mutual Insurance Company (Plaintiffs) Respondents.
-
4,132.
Kline Bros. & Co. v. Dominion Fire Ins. Co. - (1912) 47 SCR 252 - 1912-12-20
Supreme Court JudgmentsInsurance
Lewis v. Read[4]; Williams v. North China Ins. Co.[5] Even if the New York firm were agents of respondents they could not license a removal of the stock insured without express authority in writing.
-
4,133.
Hesseltine v. Nelles - (1912) 47 SCR 230 - 1912-12-10
Supreme Court JudgmentsAppeal
A.J. Nelles and William Newman (Plaintiffs) Respondents. 1912: November 11; 1912: December 10. [...] The referee having reported a certain amount of money as representing the quantum of damages that the company should pay, an appeal from his decision was brought before the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, Sir William Meredith, who varied the report as to the amount. [...] Notice of appeal was then given to this court and later on a motion was made before the registrar to affirm the jurisdiction of this court to hear the appeals, first from the judgment of 1908, secondly, from the order of Sir William Meredith given on the 23rd of January, 1911, and thirdly, from the judgment of the
-
4,134.
Fraser v. Imperial Bank of Canada - (1912) 47 SCR 313 - 1912-11-26
Supreme Court JudgmentsFinancial institutions
moneys now due or hereafter to accrue due to the said William Garson from the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, [...] all my claim and demand for moneys due or hereafter to accrue due to the said William Garson from the Canadian Pacific Railway Co. [...] It may be observed, however, that there is an interesting application of the principle involved in West v. Williams[39], at page 143.
-
4,135.
Periard v. Bergeron - (1912) 47 SCR 289 - 1912-11-11
Supreme Court JudgmentsSale
Noel Bergeron and William Rickson (Defendants) Respondents. 1912: October 11; 1912: November 11.
-
4,136.
Foss Lumber Co. v. The King - (1912) 47 SCR 130 - 1912-10-29
Supreme Court JudgmentsCustoms and excise
Speaking of the way in which the revenue laws are to be interpreted, Sir William Ritchie said, in The Queen v. The J. C. Ayer Company[10], at pages 270 and 271:—
-
4,137.
Newberry v. Langan - (1912) 47 SCR 114 - 1912-10-29
Supreme Court JudgmentsSale
John F. Langan, William B. Ryan and Harry P. Simpson (Plaintiffs) Respondents.
-
4,138.
SCR | RCS (1912) vol 46 - 1912-10-07
Canada Supreme Court ReportsWILLIAM MILLER AND WILLIAM) D. DICKSON AND THE EASTERN I CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, RESPONDENTS. LIMITED (DEFENDANTS) THERESE SCHMIDT AND JOHN} SHILTON (PLAINTIFFS) APPELLANTS ; AND WILLIAM MILLER AND WILLIAM? [...] As there were no unpaid debts she was, in effect, a bare trustee for her son William J White. [...] Solicitors for respondent: Willoughby, Craig & Mc- Williams. (1) (1912) A.C. 323, at p. 325.
-
4,139.
Serling v. Levine - (1912) 47 SCR 103 - 1912-10-07
Supreme Court JudgmentsAction
William Levine (Defendant) Respondent. 1912: May 15, 17; 1912: October 7.
-
4,140.
In re Marriage Laws - (1912) 46 SCR 132 - 1912-06-17
Supreme Court JudgmentsConstitutional law
There is a very curious bit of advice which was given in 1722 and which will be found reported in 2 Peere Williams’s Reports[56]. [...] The Master of the Rolls, Sir William Grant, in The Attorney-General v. Stewart[84], is reported as citing, apparently with approval, a passage from Blackstone, vol. 1, page 100. [...] On that occasion the following opinion was given by Sir Frederick Pollock and Sir William Webb Follett (a lawyer second to none of the great lawyers of his time):—
-
4,141.
Annable v. Conventry - (1912) 46 SCR 573 - 1912-06-04
Supreme Court JudgmentsProperty law
William J. White was the beneficial owner of the land, it having been willed to him by his father. [...] The latter’s son, William J. White, was the beneficial owner and devisee under his father’s will. [...] As there were no unpaid debts she was, in effect, a bare trustee for her son William J. White.
-
4,142.
Bentley v. Nasmith - (1912) 46 SCR 477 - 1912-03-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsSecurities
And especially so as he has failed to contradict or explain the evidence of Williams, who tells of the respondent saying some one had given a tip or hint.
-
4,143.
City of Vancouver v. Cummings - (1912) 46 SCR 457 - 1912-03-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsMunicipal law
William Cummings (Plaintiff) Respondent. 1912: February 23; 1912: March 21.
-
4,144.
National Trust Co., Limited v. Miller/Schmidt v. Miller - (1912) 46 SCR 45 - 1912-03-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsMines and minerals
William Miller and William D. Dickson and The Eastern Construction Company, Limited (Defendants) Respondents. [...] William Miller and William D. Dickson and The Eastern Construction Company, Limited (Defendants) Respondents. [...] Nuttall v. Bracewell[43]; Jeffries v. Williams[44]; Bibby v. Carter[45]; Smith’s L.C. (11 ed.), vol. 1, pp. 358-60.
-
4,145.
SCR | RCS (1912) vol 45 - 1912-03-21
Canada Supreme Court ReportsIn Maguire v. Liverpool Corporation (4), at page 782, Vaughan Williams L.J. said :— (1) L.R. 1 H.L. 97, at p. 110. [...] The case of Williams v. Stern (1), so much relied upon, seems beside the point raised here entirely. [...] 618 SUPREME COURT OF CANADA. [VOL. XLV. 1911 WILLIAM J. SMITH (PLAINTIFF) ....APPELLANT ; * Oct. 11, 12, 16, 17.
-
4,146.
Smith v. National Trust Co. - (1912) 45 SCR 618 - 1912-03-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsPriorities and hypothecs
William J. Smith (Plaintiff) Appellant; and The National Trust Co. (Defendants) Respondents. [...] I may observe that notwithstanding the profuse quotations from the opinions expressed here in disposing of the case of Williams v. Box[13], I fail to see the bearing of that case or what was said therein on this. [...] Williams v. Box[26]. I make this passing allusion only because it is illustrative of the equitable jurisdiction which the statute, notwithstanding its sweeping terms, should be held not to have destroyed.
-
4,147.
Evans v. Evans - (1912) 50 SCR 262 - 1912-02-22
Supreme Court JudgmentsProperty law
E. B. Williams for the appellant. C. A. Grant for the respondent. [1] 19 West.
-
4,148.
McKillop & Benjafield v. Alexander - (1912) 45 SCR 551 - 1912-02-20
Supreme Court JudgmentsProperty law
He proceeds to quote from Sir William Grant in Jones v. Gibbons[3], at page 410, and cites Wilmot v. Pike (1845)[4].
-
4,149.
Shawinigan Hydro-Electric Co. v. Shawinigan Water and Power Co. - (1912) 45 SCR 585 - 1912-02-20
Supreme Court JudgmentsMunicipal law
to the succession of the late William Burn to discharge the hypothec for that amount created by the company in favour of such succession.
-
4,150.
Ray v. Willson - (1911) 45 SCR 401 - 1911-12-22
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
I am also of opinion that the same conclusion will follow if it be considered upon the broad grounds upon which Vaughan Williams L.J. has based his judgment, in which I entirely concur. [...] There was a statement also made by the witness between his first statement to his own counsel and the first statement to the learned trial judge in which he refers to a note of another party for which Thompson was responsible and he says, speaking of what he held this note for: “there was a note of a man named Williams whom [...] Smith v. Prosser[35], at page 744, per Vaughan Williams L.J. The promissory notes never became negotiable instruments, the reason being that the defendant never issued them nor authorized any one else to issue them as negotiable instruments.