Advanced Search
- All Databases (4,782)
- Decisions (2,369)
- Resources (2,169)
2,369 result(s)
-
1,451.
Capital Trust Corpn. Ltd. v. The Minister of National Revenue - [1937] SCR 192 - 1937-02-02
Supreme Court JudgmentsTaxation
This will remained unchanged from 1909 until November 14th, 1923, at which time, one of his sons named as an executor and trustee having died, Sir William appointed by codicil two additional executors and trustees, thereby increasing the number from two to four. [...] This is a codicil to the last will and testament of me, William Mackenzie, of Benvenuto, Toronto. [...] The following day Sir William died. Joseph M. Mackenzie, a son of the testator and one of the executors named in the will, survived his father and died some time in 1932.
-
1,452.
Glatt v. Glatt - [1937] SCR 347 - 1937-02-02
Supreme Court JudgmentsAction
G.F. Glatt, The Trustee of the Property of William D. Trenwith, a Bankrupt (Plaintiff) Appellant; [...] By an order of McEvoy J. dated November 9, 1934, “in the matter of the bankruptcy of William D. Trenwith,” leave was given (upon terms) to Margaret Trenwith, the wife, and a creditor, of said William D. Trenwith, to commence proceedings in the name of the Trustee (G.F. Glatt) at her own expense for the purpose of setting
-
1,453.
United Motors Services, Inc. v. Hutson et al - [1937] SCR 294 - 1937-02-02
Supreme Court JudgmentsLease
So far as the courts of Ontario are concerned, the view here expressed was set forth in a judgment of the Divisional Court as long ago as 1907 in Morris v. Cairncross[11], as appears from the judgment of that court delivered by Sir William Meredith at page 570,—in this respect agreeing with the opinion of Chancellor Boyd,
-
1,454.
Fraser et al. v. The King - [1936] SCR 296 - 1936-05-27
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
William Fraser and Others Appellants; and His Majesty The King Respondent.
-
1,455.
James Richardson & Sons, Ltd. v. Standard Marine Insurance Co. Ltd. - [1936] SCR 573 - 1936-05-27
Supreme Court JudgmentsMaritime law
71 William street, New York City. Gentlemen:— Re Barge “Read-head” [...] Was it, or was it not, at that time, in the same condition, or of the same grade, as when it was loaded at Fort William and its value fixed at $0.65 a bushel? [...] 71 William street, New York city. Gentlemen:— Re Barge “Readhead”
-
1,456.
Canadian Pacific Ry. Co. v. Anderson - [1936] SCR 200 - 1936-04-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsTransportation
The cases of Lynch v. Nurdin11; Jewson v. Gatti[14]; Harrold v. Watney[15], and Barker v. Herbert[16] are all of this class (see especially per Vaughan Williams L.J. in the last cited case at pp. 637 and 638). [...] The horse and cart left unattended in the highway, to use the language of Vaughan Williams L.J.[18], “constituted a danger to those using the highway—that is, it constituted a nuisance.” [...] The following are instances: Dixon v. Bell[26]; Illidge v. Goodwin[27]; Lynch v. Nurdin[28]; Clark v. Chambers[29]; Englehard v. Farrant & Co.[30]; McDowall v. Great Western Railway[31]; Williams v. Eady[32].
-
1,457.
Corporation du Village de Deschênes v. Loveys - [1936] SCR 351 - 1936-04-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsMunicipal law
William Betcherman and Others (mis-en-cause). 1936: February 25; 1936: April 21. [...] Betcherman, mis en cause devant le magistrat, est le même William Betcherman qui est présentement mis en cause par l’appelante. [...] Il résulte de ce fait que Betcherman, lors de l’institution de la présente action, était le véritable débiteur des taxes en question, que Loveys poursuivi aurait pu appeler en garantie son acquéreur Adams qui, à son tour, aurait pu appeler en sous-garantie William Betcherman.
-
1,458.
Grobstein v. Kouri - [1936] SCR 264 - 1936-04-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsBankruptcy and insolvency
Vaughan Williams, L.J., thought the preferable construction was to treat the policy as by the husband on his wife’s life, because he was inclined to think that the husband had an interest in his wife’s life which ought to be presumed, and treating the policy in that way he did not think it necessary to go into the evidence [...] I have quoted above the words of Vaughan Williams, L.J., as to the practical reason for treating these joint insurances as insurance by each of the other’s life. [...] I can see the objection that can be taken to my own preference of dealing with the policy in the way that Vaughan Williams, L.J., did in the Griffiths case[9] because of the words of reservation of change of beneficiary in each of the applications.
-
1,459.
Regal Oil & Refining Co. v. Campbell - [1936] SCR 309 - 1936-04-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
This defence was very fully discussed in McPhee v. Esquimalt & Nanaimo Ry. Co.[15] where Smith. v. Baker (supra) and Williams v. Birmingham Battery & Metal Co.[16] were applied.
-
1,460.
Holland Canada Mortgage Co. v. Hutchings - [1936] SCR 165 - 1936-03-31
Supreme Court JudgmentsGuarantee and suretyship
Know all men by these presents, that we, William George Hunt, manager; Robert John Hutchings, manager; Absalom Judson Sayre, manager; Archibald John McArthur, gentleman; George Thomas Calendar Robinson, merchant; Albert William Ward, merchant; George Allan Anderson, physician; John Niblock, superintendent; John Edward
-
1,461.
Fraser v. The King - [1936] SCR 1 - 1936-01-24
Supreme Court JudgmentsAppeal
William Fraser and others Appellants; and His Majesty The King Respondent.
-
1,462.
Canadian Terminal System, Ltd. v. The City of Kingston - [1936] SCR 106 - 1935-11-07
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
R.S. Robertson K.C. and Sir William Hearst K.C. for the appellant. D.L. McCarthy K.C. and T.J. Rigney K.C. for the respondent.
-
1,463.
Hessler v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co. - [1935] SCR 585 - 1935-11-07
Supreme Court JudgmentsTransportation
In Groves v. Wimborne[17], Vaughan Williams, L.J., says:— Where a statute provides for the performance by certain persons of a particular duty, and some one belonging to a class of persons for whose benefit and protection the statute imposes the duty is injured by failure to perform it, prima facie, and, if there be [...] The above paragraph from the judgment of Vaughan Williams, L.J., in my opinion, lays down the principles applicable to the case at Bar.
-
1,464.
Peggy Sage Inc. v. Siegel Kahn Co. of Canada - [1935] SCR 539 - 1935-10-07
Supreme Court JudgmentsIntellectual property
William Arbuckle says that the dominant feature of the trade-mark is “Peggy” and that the people usually ask for “Peggy Sage” and at odd times “Peggy.”
-
1,465.
Scott v. Heninger - [1935] SCR 408 - 1935-06-10
Supreme Court JudgmentsLease
William Stott and Sarah Stott (Defendants) Appellants; and Ellis A. Heninger (Plaintiff) Respondent
-
1,466.
The King v. Dominion Building Corp. Ltd. - [1935] SCR 338 - 1935-05-13
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
It is in evidence that, at the time of the breach, the William Wrigley Jr. Co. Ltd. were willing to purchase through Anglin the two lots at the north-west corner of Yonge and King streets for $2,000,005, but were insisting for the transfer of the two government leases, of which, at the time, only one had been secured. [...] On September 25, William Wrigley Jr. Company Limited made an offer to Anglin to purchase the corner property and the Home Bank property.
-
1,467.
Begley v. Imperial Bank of Canada - [1935] SCR 89 - 1934-12-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsAgency
E. K. Williams K.C. for the respondent. The judgment of Duff C.J. and Crocket and Hughes JJ. and of Maclean J. ad hoc was delivered by
-
1,468.
MacInnes v. MacInnes - [1935] SCR 200 - 1934-12-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsInsurance
It was held by Vaughan Williams, L.J., and Kennedy, L.J., that the word “then” referred to the date of the nomination, Farwell, L.J., dissenting. [...] Vaughan Williams, L.J., said, at page 282:— The view which I am taking is not a novel view, because in In the Goods of Baxter[7], this very question was raised and decided. [...] Kennedy, L.J., agreed with the judgment of Vaughan Williams, L.J. In his dissenting judgment, Farwell, L.J., said, at page 284:
-
1,469.
Riach v. Ferris - [1934] SCR 725 - 1934-10-02
Supreme Court JudgmentsEstates
The plaintiff (the present respondent) propounded for probate an alleged will of William Everton Wright, deceased, made on March 1, 1932. [...] of the alleged last will and testament of William E. Wright, deceased, late of the city of Windsor.
-
1,470.
Delco Appliance Corp. v. Selby - [1934] SCR 684 - 1934-06-15
Supreme Court JudgmentsLease
William Dunbar Selby and Others (Plaintiffs) Respondents. 1934: May 15; 1934: June 15. [...] And in further consideration the said party of the second part binds and obliges himself to pay to the said William Dunbar Selby et al. at the office of Frank H. Hopkins in the city of Montreal as the said William Dunbar Selby et al. may indicate in writing, an annual rent of fourteen thousand dollars ($14,000.00) until the
-
1,471.
Alberta (Attorney-General) v. Underwood - [1934] SCR 635 - 1934-06-06
Supreme Court JudgmentsConstitutional law
William Kenneth Underwood (Defendant) Respondent; and The Attorney General of Canada (Intervener) [...] RINFRET J.—The appellant, Gertrude Mary Neilson, by her next friend, her mother, brought this action for a declaration that the ceremony of marriage solemnized between her and the respondent, William Kenneth Underwood, on the 26th day of August, 1932, at the town of Okotoks, in the province of Alberta, was not valid, and to [...] The action of Gertrude Mary Neilson will accordingly be maintained; and it will be declared that her pretended marriage with the respondent William Kenneth Underwood was null and void and is therefore annulled.
-
1,472.
Baker v. Dumaresq - [1934] SCR 665 - 1934-06-06
Supreme Court JudgmentsEstates
After her death I direct that the balance of my estate remaining in her hands shall be divided between my brother, the Rev. William W. Weeks, and my sister, Carrie Dumaresque. [...] Should my brother, William W., predecease my said sister, the whole of said balance shall go to my said sister and her heirs.
-
1,473.
Dozois v. Pure Spring Co. Ltd. and Ottawa Gas Co. - [1935] SCR 319 - 1934-06-06
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
William Delorme, another witness for the defendants, was called on the 20th December because there had been a complaint of a gas leak.
-
1,474.
Robertson v. Quinlan - [1934] SCR 550 - 1934-06-06
Supreme Court JudgmentsEvidence
Angus William Robertson (Defendant) Appellant: and Ethel Quinlan and Others (Plaintiffs) Respondents; [...] (11) that on or about the 22nd day of June, 1927, three days before the said testator died, said Angus William Robertson, one of the defendants, personally and for his own benefit, acquired a number of shares, the property of the testator, in different companies;
-
1,475.
Anderson, Greene & Co. Ltd. v. Kickley - [1934] SCR 388 - 1934-03-06
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
William S. Kickley (Plaintiff) Respondent. 1934: February 15; 1934: March 6.