Advanced Search

Syntax: "", OR, AND, EXACT(), /p, /s, /n
(YYYY or YYYY-MM or YYYY-MM-DD)
Sort by: Relevance Date

4,782 result(s)

  • 4,351.

    Halifax Electric Tramway Co. v. Inglis - (1900) 30 SCR 256 - 1900-04-02

    Supreme Court Judgments
    Torts

    William P. C. Inglis (Plaintiff) Respondent 1900: Feb. 21, 22; 1900: April 2.   [...]  He also cited with approbation the judgment of Mr. Justice Williams in Toomey v. London and Brighton Railway Co.[7], who enunciates the rule thus.

  • 4,352.

    Hart v. McMullen - (1900) 30 SCR 245 - 1900-04-02

    Supreme Court Judgments
    Sale

    See notes on Pinnington v. Galland and Hall v. Lund[38]; Washburn on Easements, p. 58; Rackley v. Sprague[39], and cases there cited; Hathorn v. Stinson[40]; Baker v. Bessey[41]; Richardson v. Bigtlow[42]; Lammott v. Ewers[43]; Oakley v. Stanley[44]; Bayley v. Great Western Railway Co.[45]; Broomfield v. Williams[46].   [...]  Solicitor for the appellant: William A. Henry. Solicitor for the respondent: Norman J. Layton.

  • 4,353.

    Handley et al. Archibald - (1899) 30 SCR 130 - 1899-11-29

    Supreme Court Judgments
    Property law

    I don't know that Matheson gave the keys to my brother William—William pays no rent—I just allow him to occupy.   [...]  The latter says first that the keys were given up by Matheson to William, afterwards he says he does not know whether Matheson did give William the keys or not.   [...]  Then he says William paid no rent, "I just allow him to occupy." This does not prove that William is a tenant under John R. Handley.

  • 4,354.

    Wood v. Canadian Pacific Railway Co. - (1899) 30 SCR 110 - 1899-11-07

    Supreme Court Judgments
    Torts

    William David Wood (Plaintiff) Appellant; and The Canadian Pacific Rail Way Company (Defendant) Respondent.   [...]  Nesbitt Q.C. for the respondent, cited Johnson v. Lindsay & Co.[5] ; Williams v. Bartling[6] ; Williams v. Birmingham Battery & Metal Co.[7].

  • 4,355.

    Tucker v. Young - (1899) 30 SCR 185 - 1899-10-27

    Supreme Court Judgments
    Appeal

    William S. Tucker (Defendant) Appellant; and William Young and John W. Young (Plaintiffs) Respondents.

  • 4,356.

    Jamieson v. London and Canadian Loan and Agency Co. - (1899) 30 SCR 14 - 1899-10-24

    Supreme Court Judgments
    Priorities and hypothecs

    See Treloar v. Bigge[2]; Williams v. Bosanquet[3]; Eaton v. Jacques[4].   [...]  The dictum of Dallas C.J. in Williams v. Bosanquet[6], so far as it goes is favourable to the respondents.

  • 4,357.

    The Queen v. Poirier et al. - (1899) 30 SCR 36 - 1899-10-24

    Supreme Court Judgments
    Lease

    the lease under which they claimed and which was set out in the petition of right and it appeared to be-in notarial form as between the Government of the Province of Quebec represented by William Alphonse Nantel in his capacity of Commissioner of Public Works, lessors, &c.

  • 4,358.

    The Queen v. Yule et al. - (1899) 30 SCR 24 - 1899-10-24

    Supreme Court Judgments
    Constitutional law

    William Andrew Yule and Others (Suppliants) Respondents 1899: Oct. 3, 4; 1899: Oct. 24

  • 4,359.

    SCR | RCS (1899) vol 29 - 1899-10-13

    Canada Supreme Court Reports

    The respondent William, then seventeen years of age, remained at home.   [...]  Upon the return of the deed to William, the plaintiff, who was postmaster at the place where William resided, obtained thereby notice of its arrival.   [...]  William T. Pipes. 548 SUPREME COURT OF CANADA. [VOL. XXIX 1899 JOSIAH WILLIAMS (PLAINTIFF) APPELLANT ; *Feb. 24.

  • 4,360.

    Coplen v. Callahan - (1899) 30 SCR 555 - 1899-10-08

    Supreme Court Judgments
    Mines and minerals

    Charles Callahan, Administrator of The Estate of William Callahan, Deceased (Plaintiff) Respondent.   [...]  William Callaghan then brought an "adverse action" under the British Columbia Mining Act, R.S.B. C. ch. 135.   [...]  Before the appeal to the court en banc the plaintiff William Callahan died and the action was revived in the name of his executor.

  • 4,361.

    Black et al. v. The Queen - (1899) 29 SCR 693 - 1899-10-03

    Supreme Court Judgments
    Guarantee and suretyship

    The form of this bond is not known to Quebec law, but it is sufficient under the statutes and it was by these statutes that the parties intended themselves to be bound; see Lafleur on Conflict of Laws, p. 149; Hamlyn v. Talisker Distillery[19]; and Colonial Bank V. Cady & Williams[20].

  • 4,362.

    Atlas Assurance Co. v. Brownwell - (1899) 29 SCR 537 - 1899-06-05

    Supreme Court Judgments
    Insurance

    Solicitor for the respondents: William T. Pipes. [1] 31 N. S. Rep. 348.

  • 4,363.

    Burris v. Rhind - (1899) 29 SCR 498 - 1899-06-05

    Supreme Court Judgments
    Contract

    The respondent William, then seventeen years of age, • remained at home.   [...]  After George's death William undertook the working of the farm, [Page 500]   [...]  Upon the return of the deed to William, the plaintiff, who was postmaster at the place where William resided, obtained thereby notice of its arrival.

  • 4,364.

    Carroll v. Erie County Natural Gas and Fuel Co. - (1899) 29 SCR 591 - 1899-06-05

    Supreme Court Judgments
    Action

    Samuel S. Carroll and William E. Carroll (Plaintiffs) Appellants; and

  • 4,365.

    Hyde v. Lindsay - (1899) 29 SCR 595 - 1899-06-05

    Supreme Court Judgments
    Estates

    We are therefore of opinion that the appeal should be allowed with costs before all the courts and that this action be referred to William L. Scott, Esquire, one of the masters of the High Court of Justice of Ontario, at Ottawa, to take an account of the amount reasonably and properly paid or incurred by appellant as such

  • 4,366.

    Williams v. Bartling et al. - (1899) 29 SCR 548 - 1899-06-05

    Supreme Court Judgments
    Torts

    Williams v. Bartling et al., (1899) 29 SCR 548 Supreme Court of Canada   [...]  William v. Bartling (1899) 29 SCR 548 Date: 1899-06-05 Josiah Williams (Plaintiff)   [...]  William W. Bartling and James C. Bartling (Defendants) Respondents

  • 4,367.

    Zwicker v. Feindel - (1899) 29 SCR 516 - 1899-06-05

    Supreme Court Judgments
    Sale

    Burrowes v. Locke[2], at page 474; Williams v. Williams[3], at page 857; Berry v. Peek:[4], at page 360; Mills v. Fox[5], at pages 162-166; Hammersley v. De Biel[6], at pages 87-88; Hutlon v. Rossiter[7], at page 18.

  • 4,368.

    Zwicker v. Zwicker - (1899) 29 SCR 527 - 1899-06-05

    Supreme Court Judgments
    Contract

    causing it to be recorded, paying his share of the cost thereof, and in taking possession and claiming under it the property of Joseph Zwicker, prevent him from setting up any title inconsistent with the conveyance in question. 1 Williams on Executors, (9 ed.) 344, 345; Kenrick v. Burgess[7]; Whitehall v. Squire[8].

  • 4,369.

    Norwich Union Fire Ins. Co. v. LeBell - (1899) 29 SCR 470 - 1899-05-30

    Supreme Court Judgments
    Insurance

    Williams Personal Property (10 ed.) pp. 8 and 37. Lingley v. Queen Ins. Co.[19].

  • 4,370.

    Quebec Montmorency & Charlevoix Railway Co. v. Gibsone - (1899) 29 SCR 340 - 1899-02-22

    Supreme Court Judgments
    Expropriation

    WILLIAM WARING PRIMROSE GIBSONE AND OTHERS (PLAINTIFFS PAR REPRISE D'INSTANCE)   [...]  WILLIAM WARING PRIMROSE GIBSONE AND OTHERS (PLAINTIFFS PAR REPRISE D'INSTANCE)

  • 4,371.

    The Queen v. Ogilvie - (1899) 29 SCR 299 - 1899-02-22

    Supreme Court Judgments
    Contract

    Reference was also made to Williams v. Rawlinson[12], per Best C. J. at page 371; Harding v. Tifft[13], at page 464 to 466 as to undisclosed intention; Stone v. Seymour[14]; Robson v. McKoin[15]; Plomer v. Long[16]; Gordon v. Hobart[17]; Ex parte Whitworth[18]; Monger on Appropriation, p. 75 and cases there cited; Stamford

  • 4,372.

    Common v. McArthur - (1898) 29 SCR 239 - 1898-12-14

    Supreme Court Judgments
    Commercial law

    WILLIAM J. COMMON, ês qualité (PETITIONER) Appellant; And COLIN MCARTHUR, (CONTESTANT)   [...]  In January, 1897, the company had become insolvent and a winding-up order was made against it, the appellant William J. Common being appointed liquidator.

  • 4,373.

    Roberts v. Hawkins - (1898) 29 SCR 218 - 1898-12-14

    Supreme Court Judgments
    Torts

    DAVID ROBERTS AND WILLIAM THOMPSON (DEFENDANTS) Appellants; And HENRY HAWKINS, ês qualité (PLAINTIFF)   [...]  Was said injury caused by any fault or imprudence of said Herbert William Ball, and if so, state in what the same consisted?   [...]  Did said Herbert William Ball persist in remaining at the spot where the accident happened, notwithstanding defendants' warning asto the danger?

  • 4,374.

    Commercial Union Assurance Co. v. Temple - (1898) 29 SCR 206 - 1898-11-21

    Supreme Court Judgments
    Insurance

    Solicitor for the respondent: William Pugsley. [1] 12 Can. S. C. R. 446.

  • 4,375.

    Makins v. Piggott & Inglis - (1898) 29 SCR 188 - 1898-11-21

    Supreme Court Judgments
    Torts

    Wallace Nesbitt, (Gauld with him,) for the appellant, cited McGibbon v. The Northern Railway Co.[1]; Williams v. Eady[2]; Scott v. London and St. Katherine Docks Co.[3] at page 601; Broom’s Legal Maxims 298; Snyder v. Wheeling Electrical Company[4]; Beven on Negligence, 561; Pollock on Texts, (5 ed.) pp. 21-41; Clark v.