Advanced Search
- All Databases (4,782)
- Decisions (2,369)
- Resources (2,169)
2,369 result(s)
-
1,676.
Dominion Chain Co. v. McKinnon Chain Co. - (1919) 58 SCR 121 - 1919-02-04
Supreme Court JudgmentsIntellectual property
In Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. v. Mosely[6], at page 280, Vaughan Williams L.J. approves of this statement of the law, adding:—
-
1,677.
Lecomte v. O'Grady - (1918) 57 SCR 563 - 1918-12-09
Supreme Court JudgmentsAppeal
E. K. Williams for the respondent. Davies J.—I concur with Mr. Justice Anglin.
-
1,678.
North American Accident Insurance Co. v. Newton - (1918) 57 SCR 577 - 1918-12-09
Supreme Court JudgmentsInsurance
E. K. Williams for the respondents. The Chief Justice.—I concur with Mr. Justice Anglin.
-
1,679.
Clark v. Northern Shirt Co. - (1918) 57 SCR 607 - 1918-11-18
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
Intellectual property
E. K. Williams for the respondent. [1] 17 Ex. C.R. 273; 38 D.L.R. 1.
-
1,680.
Williams Machinery Co. v. Graham - (1918) 57 SCR 229 - 1918-10-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsBankruptcy and insolvency
Williams Machinery Co. v. Graham, (1918) 57 SCR 229 Supreme Court of Canada [...] Williams Machinery Co. v. Graham, (1918) 57 S.C.R. 229 Date: 1918-10-21 [...] Williams Machinery Company (Plaintiff) Appellant; and John Graham (Defendant) Respondent
-
1,681.
Cameron v. Church of Christ, Scientist - (1918) 57 SCR 298 - 1918-10-08
Supreme Court JudgmentsEstates
William C Moore and the survivor of them as they may appoint to be my sole Executors and Trustees of this my Will, but declaring that these Presents are granted in trust always for the purpose aftermentioned, viz.: (First) I direct my Executors and Trustees to first pay my just debts, personal and testamentary expenses. [...] Christian Science Practitioner, Mr. William C. Moore, Bobcaygeon, Ontario, Manufacturer, and the survivor of them, as Trustees and in trust for the purposes aftermentioned the whole estate and effects, heritable and movable, real and personal, presently belonging to me and that shall belong to me at the time of my decease,
-
1,682.
Mutual Life Assurance Co. of Canada v. Douglas - (1918) 57 SCR 243 - 1918-10-08
Supreme Court JudgmentsPriorities and hypothecs
"The mortgage being foreclosed" (said Sir William Grant) "the estate becomes absolutely his." [...] Nor do the decisions in Williams v. Box[23], and Smith v. National Trust Co.[24], materially aid either party. [...] Mr. Justice Idington emphasises the fact in Williams v. Box, 23 at p. 12.
-
1,683.
Schell v. McCallum & Vannatter - (1918) 57 SCR 15 - 1918-06-10
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
Solicitors for the appellants: Carrothers & Williams. Solicitor for the respondents: G. H. Yule.
-
1,684.
Power v. The King - (1918) 56 SCR 499 - 1918-05-07
Supreme Court JudgmentsExpropriation
William Power and Others (Defendants) Appellants; and His Majesty The King (Plaintiff) Respondent; [...] Dans la présente cause, notre attention a été particulièrement attirée sur la valeur de propriétés situées plus à l'ouest, savoir celles du Séminaire de Québec, de William Power, de A. O. Falardeau, de Frank Ross, de la succession Dobell, de la Marquise de Bassano et de la succession Lampson, qui ont été payées de cinq
-
1,685.
Arnold v. Dominion Trust Co - (1918) 56 SCR 433 - 1918-04-15
Supreme Court JudgmentsInsurance
The question to be decided on the appeal is whether the sum of $75,000, being part of the proceeds collected from life insurance on the life of William Robert Arnold, deceased, belongs to the appellants who are the widow and infant children of the deceased or constitutes part of his general estate. [...] The present action has been instituted by the appellant to claim a sum of $75,000, being part of the proceeds from life insurance of her husband, William Robert Arnold.
-
1,686.
Simson v. Young - (1918) 56 SCR 388 - 1918-03-25
Supreme Court JudgmentsSale
In view of the provisions of the "Land Titles Act" already adverted to, not a little may be said for that view (see Williams on Vendor and Purchaser (2nd ed.) 1186)—but it is unnecessary to determine the point in the present case.
-
1,687.
Great Northern Insurance Co. v. Whitney - (1918) 57 SCR 543 - 1918-03-11
Supreme Court JudgmentsInsurance
William D. Whitney (Plaintiff) Respondent 1918: March 4, 11. Present:—Sir Charles Fitzpatrick C.J. and Idington, Anglin and Brodeur JJ.
-
1,688.
Hansen v. Franz - (1918) 57 SCR 57 - 1918-03-11
Supreme Court JudgmentsSale
In closing his long judgment Mr. Justice Williams refers to a number of cases of defect in the quantity including Portman v. Mill[25], and says he cannot extract a rule therefrom. [...] Penrose v. Knight[29]; Follis v. Porter[30]; Clayton v. Leech[31]; Dart on Vendors and Purchasers (1905 ed.), p. 812; Williams on Vendors & Purchasers (1911 ed.), pp. 6, 10, 11. [...] That appears to have been rather assumed in Jolliffe v. Baker (2), (in other aspects a strong authority for the defendant) in the latter part of the judgment of Watkins Williams J. (pp. 273-4).
-
1,689.
Acton Tanning Co. v. Toronto Suburban Rway. Co. - (1918) 56 SCR 196 - 1918-03-05
Supreme Court JudgmentsTransportation
entirely within his rights in submitting to Sir William Mackenzie the proposition for his assent. [...] An alleged absence of corroboration of Sir William’s evidence is chiefly relied upon by appellant. [...] His son, Walter Williams Beardmore, speaking of his late father’s position in the business, says:—
-
1,690.
Stahl v. Miller - (1918) 56 SCR 312 - 1918-03-05
Supreme Court JudgmentsSale
William Miller and John Kildall (Defendants) Respondents. 1918: February 27; 1918: March 5. [...] BRODEUR J.—Stahl had given a power of attorney to William Miller and to the firm J. J. Miller, of which William Miller was a member. [...] It happened that the Kildall estate, of which William Miller was one of the trustees, had some property for sale, and an agreement for sale of some lots was then signed by the trustees of the Kildall estate of which William Miller was one, in favour of Stahl, and the agreement was then signed by William Miller as agent for
-
1,691.
Grand Trunk Rway Co. v. Mayne - (1917) 56 SCR 95 - 1917-11-28
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
DAVIES J. (dissenting).—On the night of November 13, 1915, the deceased, William Mayne, respondent’s husband, a passenger travelling on a train of the appellants with his wife and seven children, one of which was a baby in arms, came to his death by stepping off the car while it was still in motion and before it had reached
-
1,692.
Geall v. Dominion Creosoting Co. / Salter v. Dominion Creosoting Co. - (1917) 55 SCR 587 - 1917-10-15
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
One of them, as stated by Vaughan-Williams L.J. at p. 337 I take to be this that [...] On the contrary, Lord Macnaghten, in the former case, with whose opinion Lord Loreburn concurred, approved expressly of the opinions expressed by Romer & Sterling L.JJ. in McDowall v. Great Western Rly. Co.,8 which, as I read them, are in full accord with those of Vaughan-Williams from which I have quoted.
-
1,693.
Grace v. Kuebler and Brunner - (1917) 56 SCR 1 - 1917-10-09
Supreme Court JudgmentsSale
In merely making their payments, they were not persons subsequently dealing with it to whom registration in the interval would be notice; Gilleland v. Wadsworth[11]; Williams v. Sorrell[12].
-
1,694.
Toronto General Trusts Corp. v. The King - (1917) 56 SCR 26 - 1917-10-09
Supreme Court JudgmentsTaxation
The decision In the estate of Sir William Clark[29], is instructive and closely in point.
-
1,695.
Chalmers v. Machray - (1917) 55 SCR 612 - 1917-06-22
Supreme Court JudgmentsSale
Tilley K.C. and E. K. Williams for the respondents [1] 26 Man. R. 105
-
1,696.
Rosborough v. Trustees of St. Andrew's Church - (1917) 55 SCR 360 - 1917-06-22
Supreme Court JudgmentsEstates
See also Smith's Equity Jurisprudence in the chapter on Election at page 137 and following pages, and Williams on Executors, 10th ed., page 1030.
-
1,697.
Upper Canada College v. The City of Toronto - (1917) 55 SCR 433 - 1917-06-22
Supreme Court JudgmentsTaxation
Solicitor for the respondent: William Johnston. [1] 37 Ont. L.R. 665.
-
1,698.
The City of Toronto v. J.F. Brown Co. - (1917) 55 SCR 153 - 1917-05-02
Supreme Court JudgmentsMunicipal law
The recent case of Grand Trunk Pacific Ry. Co. v. Fort William Land Co.[24], determined by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on the proper construction of the “Dominion Railway Act, 1906,” secs. 47, 15 and 237(3), seems to me to apply the same principles to the construction of our Railway Act as have been applied [...] In other words, the Board could not by an order authorizing the location of the road along certain streets in the City of Fort William extend the compensation clauses beyond the matters specifically referred to in the statute, and that the “location” of the road was not one of those matters. [...] Solicitor of the appellant: William Johnston. Solicitors for the respondents: Macdonald, Shepley, Donald & Mason.
-
1,699.
In Re "Horlick's" - (1917) 64 SCR 466 - 1917-05-01
Supreme Court JudgmentsIntellectual property
The Weekly Notes and Law Times come to, hand since this appeal was heard, contain notes of the decision of Mr. Justice Neville in Re William Crawford & Sons[3], where he held the application for registration should not proceed by reason of the name being a common one.
-
1,700.
Murphy v. The King - (1917) 55 SCR 550 - 1917-03-22
Supreme Court JudgmentsMines and minerals
James William Murphy and Robert Sedgwick Gould (Defendants) Appellants;