Advanced Search
- All Databases (2,511)
- Decisions (1,094)
- Resources (1,417)
2,511 result(s)
-
2,101.
United Motors Services, Inc. v. Hutson et al - [1937] SCR 294 - 1937-02-02
Supreme Court JudgmentsLease
from want of care” (Scott v. London & St. Katherine Docks Co., 3 H. & C. 596); defendant did not show that at the time of the explosion the gas jets were not lighted, and it failed to suggest any explanation or warrantable inference as to the cause of the fire, and plaintiffs were entitled to rely on said maxim. [...] Most frequently it is applied where the principle stated in Scott v. London and St. Katherine Docks Co.[2] comes into play. [...] doctrine res ipsa loquitur serves to make these circumstances “reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendant, that the accident arose from want of care.” Scott v. London & St. Katherine Docks Co.[13].
-
2,102.
SCR | RCS [1936] - 1936-11-09
Canada Supreme Court Reportsxx TABLE OF CASES CITED [S.C.R. M—Concluded NAME OF CASE WEERE REPORTED PAGE Montreal City v. Watt & Scott Ltd... [...] The Greenock case (1) was subsequently referred to in the Privy Council in a Quebec case, Montreal City v. Watt and Scott Limited (3), in the judgment delivered by Lord Dunedin.
-
2,103.
Southern Canada Power Co. Ltd. v. The King - [1936] SCR 4 - 1936-01-15
Supreme Court JudgmentsState
The Greenock case5 was subsequently referred to in the Privy Council in a Quebec case, Montreal City v. Watt and Scott Limited[7], in the judgment delivered by Lord Dunedin.
-
2,104.
SCR | RCS [1935] - 1935-11-22
Canada Supreme Court ReportsW. L. Scott K.C. for the appellants. O. M. Biggar K.C. and R. S. Smart K.C. for the respondent. [...] LTD. Solicitors for the appellants: Ewart, Scott, Kelley, Scott Cannon J. & Howard. [...] Solicitors for the respondents: Nesbitt, McMurtry & Ganong. 1935 MASON v. SCOTT AND ANDERSON *Feb. 19, 20 ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA * Apri115.
-
2,105.
Hessler v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co. - [1935] SCR 585 - 1935-11-07
Supreme Court JudgmentsTransportation
These American cases, while not differing in principle, are closer to the facts of this case than the English decisions in Gorris v. Scott[4], and Atkinson v. Newcastle & Gateshead Waterworks Co.[5]. [...] In Gorris v. Scott[15] the statutory provision relied on was the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, under which the Privy Council made orders, which they were authorized to do, in reference to animals brought into Great Britain on board vessels. [...] He relied mainly on the principle affirmed in the English cases of Gorris v. Scott[19], Le Lièvre v. Gould[20] and Atkinson v. Newcastle & Gateshead Waterworks Co.[21], and the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in 1929 in Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Mihas[22], where that court quoted with approval
-
2,106.
Peggy Sage Inc. v. Siegel Kahn Co. of Canada - [1935] SCR 539 - 1935-10-07
Supreme Court JudgmentsIntellectual property
W. L. Scott K.C. for the appellants. O. M. Biggar K.C. and R. S. Smart K.C. for the respondent. [...] Solicitors for the appellants: Ewart, Scott, Kelley, Scott & Howard.
-
2,107.
Scott v. Heninger - [1935] SCR 408 - 1935-06-10
Supreme Court JudgmentsLease
Scott v. Heninger, , [1935] SCR 408 Supreme Court of Canada Scott v. Heninger, [1935] S.C.R. 408
-
2,108.
Mason v. Scott - [1935] SCR 656 - 1935-04-15
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
Mason v. Scott, , [1935] SCR 656 Supreme Court of Canada Mason v. Scott, [1935] S.C.R. 656 [...] Mason v. Scott and Anderson 1935: February 19, 20; 1935: April 15.
-
2,109.
Begley v. Imperial Bank of Canada - [1935] SCR 89 - 1934-12-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsAgency
In Scott v. Bank of New Brunswick[20] this court held: If payment is obtained from a debtor by one who falsely represents that he is an agent of the creditor, upon whom a fraud is thereby committed, if the creditor ratifies and confirms the payment he adopts the agency of the person receiving the money and makes the payment [...] Chief Justice Strong, in the same case of Scott v. The Bank of New Brunswick[22], said that the distinction between ratification and estoppel is well pointed out in a case of Forsyth v. Day[23], where it is said:
-
2,110.
M.A. Hanna Company v. The Provincial Bank of Canada - [1935] SCR 144 - 1934-12-12
Supreme Court JudgmentsFinancial institutions
Appellant’s witness E. G. Thompson swears that either Mr. Baile, President of the Susquehanna Collieries Ltd., or Mr. Scott, the attorney of the appellant, said to Mr. [...] On Nov. 11th, W. C. Scott of Cleveland, Ohio, office attorney of the appellant, and John D. Baile of Susquehanna Collieries, Montreal, agent of the appellant, went to Saint John in behalf of the appellant. [...] Scott and Baile do not appear from the evidence to have examined the banking arrangements of Eastern Coal Docks, Limited, any more than did Mr. Wright, and no person connected with the appellant interviewed or wrote
-
2,111.
SCR | RCS [1934] - 1934-11-20
Canada Supreme Court Reports[1932] 3 W.W.R. 275 282 Edwards v. Rural Municipality of Scott [1934] 1 W.W.R. 33 332 Ellard v. Millar [1930] Can. S.C.R. 319 569 F Fairman v. Perpetual Investment Bldg. [...] Quebec R.L.H. & P. Co. v. Vandry ([1920] A.C. 662) and City of Montreal v. Watt & Scott Ltd. ([1922] 2 A.C. 555) COLPRON V. foil. [...] 332 SUPREME COURT OF CANADA [1934 1934 RURAL MUNICIPALITY OF SCOTT v. EDWARDS * May 3,4.
-
2,112.
Rural Municipality of Scott v. Edwards - [1934] SCR 332 - 1934-05-08
Supreme Court JudgmentsPublic utilities
Rural Municipality of Scott v. Edwards, , [1934] SCR 332 Supreme Court of Canada [...] Rural Municipality of Scott v. Edwards, [1934] S.C.R. 332 Date: 1934-05-08. [...] Rural Municipality of Scott v. Edwards 1934: May 3, 4; 1934: May 8.
-
2,113.
Electrolier Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Dominion Manufacturing Ltd. - [1934] SCR 436 - 1934-04-24
Supreme Court JudgmentsIntellectual property
W. L. Scott K.C. for the respondent. The judgment of the court was delivered by
-
2,114.
Lewis v. Nisbet & Auld Ltd. - [1934] SCR 333 - 1934-04-24
Supreme Court JudgmentsLabour law
We were referred to British Columbia Mills Co. v. Scott[20], Wood v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co.[21], and other cases in this court and in Ontario in support of the proposition which it was contended was laid down in Walsh v. Whiteley[22], but all these cases will be found, in so far as they concern the question of injuries caused by
-
2,115.
Colpron v. The Canadian National Ry. Co. - [1934] SCR 189 - 1934-01-26
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
Quebec R.L.H. & P. Co. v. Vandry ([1920] A.C. 662) and City of Montreal v. Watt & Scott Ltd. ([1922] 2 A.C. 555) foll. [...] In the City of Montreal v. Watt and Scott, Ltd.2, the Judicial Committee, speaking through Lord Dunedin, placed upon this clause an authoritative interpretation. [...] Le Conseil Privé dans Cité de Montréal v. Watt Scott Ltd.[4], a complété cette décision en ajoutant qu’il suffisait de prouver que la défenderesse n’avait pu empêcher le dommage “par des moyens raisonnables”.
-
2,116.
SCR | RCS [1933] - 1933-11-15
Canada Supreme Court ReportsGen. for Canada [1923] A.C.136 v. Davis Q.R. 6 K.B. 177; 27 Can. S.C.R. 539.... v. Dugdale 25 L.C.J. 149 v. Watt & Scott Ltd [1922]A.C. 555 Montreal L. H. & P. Co. v. City of Outremont [1932] A.C. 423 Montreal Rolling Mills v. Corcoran...26 Can. S.C.R. 595 Montreal Tramways Co. v. Mulhern..Q.R. 26 K.B. 456; 55 Can. [...] City of Montreal v. Watt & Scott Ltd. (2). I doubt myself if exposition could make the meaning of the language used in either text plainer than it is.
-
2,117.
Moreau v. Labelle - [1933] SCR 201 - 1933-02-27
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
City of Montreal v. Watt & Scott Ltd.[6]. I doubt myself if exposition could make the meaning of the language used in either text plainer than it is.
-
2,118.
SCR | RCS [1932] - 1932-10-11
Canada Supreme Court ReportsW. L. Scott K.C., and A. J. Fraser, contra. *PRESENT :—Rinfret J. in chambers. [...] 186 SUPREME COURT OF CANADA [ 1932 1931 on the principle laid down in Scott v. Scott (1). [...] Lord Hanworth in his dissenting judgment says that if the hearing was a judicial proceeding he would follow the principle laid down in Scott v. Scott (1).
-
2,119.
Rogers v. Davis, et al. - [1932] SCR 546 - 1932-05-07
Supreme Court JudgmentsCivil procedure
Cuthbert Scott for the appellant. Stanley M. Clark and E.H. Charleson for the respondents.
-
2,120.
O'Connor v. Waldron - [1932] SCR 183 - 1931-12-22
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
on the principle laid down in Scott v. Scott[6]. Luxmoore J. and the majority of the judges in the Court of Appeal (Lawrence and Romer, LJJ.) held that it was unnecessary to determine this question, but Lawrence, L.J., states that, in his opinion, there is a good deal to be said for the contention of the Attorney General [...] Lord Hanworth in his dissenting judgment says that if the hearing was a judicial proceeding he would follow the principle laid down in Scott v. Scott6.
-
2,121.
SCR | RCS [1931] - 1931-11-09
Canada Supreme Court ReportsIn The Eleanor (1), Sir William Scott said: Real and irresistible distress must be at all times a sufficient passport for human beings under any such application of human laws. [...] In The Eleanor (1), Sir William Scott enunciated the principle which, in our opinion, applies to the weaknesses of the vessels as above set out. [...] L.R. 65), reversing ju - the jury (Scott v. London & St. Katherine ment of Taylor J. (24 Sask.
-
2,122.
Bell Telephone Co. of Canada v. The Toronto, Hamilton & Buffalo Ry. Co. And The City of Hamilton - [1932] SCR 54 - 1931-10-23
Supreme Court JudgmentsAction
W. L. Scott K.C., and A. J. Fraser, contra. [Page 55] Rinfret, J.—The appellant moves for an order striking out paragraph no. 11 of the factum filed on behalf of the respondent, the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway Company, and paragraph no. 12 of the factum filed on behalf of the respondent, the city of Hamilton, in
-
2,123.
Overn v. Strand - [1931] SCR 720 - 1931-10-06
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
[18] (1834) 4 Moore & Scott 552. [19] (1818) 129 E.R. 488. [20] (1875) 3 Indian Appeals 106.
-
2,124.
May, SS. v. The King - [1931] SCR 374 - 1931-04-28
Supreme Court JudgmentsFishery
In The Eleanor[1], Sir William Scott said: Real and irresistible distress must be at all times a sufficient passport for human beings under any such application of human laws. [...] “Nothing less,” says Sir William Scott, “than an uncontrollable necessity, which admits of no compromise, and cannot be resisted,” will be held a justification of the offence.
-
2,125.
Ottawa Electric Co. v. Crepin - [1931] SCR 407 - 1931-04-28
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
Held (1) The evidence of the wire being on the sidewalk was sufficient to attribute negligence to defendant, in the absence of any other apparent cause or explanation excluding negligence to the satisfaction of the jury (Scott v. London & St. Katherine Docks Co., 3 H. & C. 596, at 601, cited). [...] In the case of Scott v. London and St. Katherine Docks Co., in the Exchequer Chamber[5], it was said that