Advanced Search
- All Databases (4,782)
- Decisions (2,369)
- Resources (2,169)
2,369 result(s)
-
1,701.
Marshall Brick Co. v. York Farmers Colonization Co. - (1917) 54 SCR 569 - 1917-02-19
Supreme Court JudgmentsPriorities and hypothecs
See Graham v. Williams[3]; Blight v. Ray[4]; West v. Elkins[5]; Gearing v. Robinson[6]; Orr v. Robertson2. [...] Graham v. Williams[17]; Gearing v. Robinson[18]; Slattery v. Lillis[19] at page 703; Quinn v. Leathem[20], at page 506. [...] This case is distinguished from the case of Graham v. Williams[30], much relied upon by the respondents; because in that case the builder or the intended purchaser never obligated himself to build, it was purely and simply a case of the owner permitting his lessee to erect some buildings and to advance him some money.
-
1,702.
Boyd v. Attorney-General of British Columbia - (1917) 54 SCR 532 - 1917-02-06
Supreme Court JudgmentsEstates
DAVIES J. (dissenting).—The question to be determined on this appeal is whether the share or interest of Mossom Martin Boyd, deceased, in certain real estate situate in British Columbia standing at his death in his name and in that of his partner William T. C. Boyd, is liable for succession duties under the "Succession [...] These lands had been acquired and registered in the names of the said Mossom Martin Boyd and his said brother William Thorncroft Cust Boyd and were held as partnership property. [...] DUFF J.—The Mossom Boyd Company was a firm composed of two members, Mossom Boyd and William Boyd, carrying on (inter alia) a lumber business with its head office at Bobcaygeon in Ontario.
-
1,703.
Dominion Creosoting Co. v. Nickson Co - (1917) 55 SCR 303 - 1917-02-06
Supreme Court JudgmentsCommercial law
William Brandt's Sons & Co. v. Dunlop Rubber Co.[7]; Comfort v. Betts [8]; Hughes v. Pumphouse Hotel Co. [9].
-
1,704.
Toronto Suburban Rway. Co. v. Everson - (1917) 54 SCR 395 - 1917-02-06
Supreme Court JudgmentsExpropriation
The appellants’ railway is not to be constructed upon a public highway, as was the case in Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Co. v. Fort William Land Investment Co.[40], referred to by Mr. Henderson.
-
1,705.
City of Toronto v. Lambert - (1916) 54 SCR 200 - 1916-12-30
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
The action was tried at Toronto by Sir William Mulock, C.J., with a jury. [...] Solicitor for the appellant: William Johnston. Solicitor for respondent Ada Lambert: Henry C. Forster.
-
1,706.
Belanger v. The King - (1916) 54 SCR 265 - 1916-12-11
Supreme Court JudgmentsTransportation
Co. v. Fort William Land Investment Co.[2]. It is not, however, necessary to pass upon that question.
-
1,707.
Jamieson v. Edmonton (City) - (1916) 54 SCR 443 - 1916-12-11
Supreme Court JudgmentsMunicipal law
In the case of Maguire v. Liverpool Corporation[4], Vaughan-Williams L.J. asserts the same general rule as do Farwell and Kennedy L.JJ. in the Bingley Case3, and treats the immunity of the authority in respect to the non-repair of highways as an exception due to the particular history of the highways.
-
1,708.
Leamy v. The King - (1916) 54 SCR 143 - 1916-11-07
Supreme Court JudgmentsMaritime law
The appellants contend that the portion of the bed of the river which is in question passed to their predecessors in title, by the grants to Caleb Brooks in 1860 and 1865, and that to William Brooks in 1891.
-
1,709.
McKee v. Philip - (1916) 55 SCR 286 - 1916-10-30
Supreme Court JudgmentsSale
William Philip (Defendant) Respondent. 1916: October 17; 1916: October 30.
-
1,710.
Canadian Northern Railway Co. v. Pszenicnzy - (1916) 54 SCR 36 - 1916-10-16
Supreme Court JudgmentsTransportation
Williams, L.J., at page 13. The limitation applies only to actions brought in respect of injuries caused directly, and not indirectly, by the construction or operation of the road, and is not intended to apply to suits founded upon injuries to civil rights unconnected with railway legislation in its true sense.
-
1,711.
Gillies v. Brown - (1916) 53 SCR 557 - 1916-06-24
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
A.—Prior to the payment of this 4th December to William Hill. 103. Q.—Well, did you agree to that?
-
1,712.
Ingersoll Telephone Co. v. Bell Telephone Co. of Canada - (1916) 53 SCR 583 - 1916-06-24
Supreme Court JudgmentsTransportation
The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Co. v. City of Fort William[4], where the Board, on an application to run over a public street, imposed the condition that the adjoining owners on the street should be compensated.
-
1,713.
Jones v. Tucker - (1916) 53 SCR 431 - 1916-06-19
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
William W. Jones (Defendant) Appellant; and Henry C. Tucker (Plaintiff) Respondent [...] Anglin J.—By an agreement in writing, dated the 12th day of December, 1913, the defendant William W. Jones agreed to sell to the plaintiff the whole of section 17, in township 4 and range 3, west of the second meridian, in the Province of Saskatchewan, in consideration of the sum of $22,800, payable, as to $16,000 thereof,
-
1,714.
Olmstead v. The King - (1916) 53 SCR 450 - 1916-06-19
Supreme Court JudgmentsPublic utilities
Howard Herbert Victor Olmstead and William Atchison Olmstead (Suppliants) Appellants;
-
1,715.
Canadian Northern Railway Co. v. Diplock - (1916) 53 SCR 376 - 1916-05-25
Supreme Court JudgmentsTransportation
In the same case Lord Shaw of Dumferline had pointedly withheld his assent to the pronouncements of Darling J. and Vaughan-Williams L.J., in the lower courts, as to immunity for injuries caused to mere trespassers.
-
1,716.
The St. John Lumber Company v. Roy - (1916) 53 SCR 310 - 1916-05-16
Supreme Court JudgmentsAppeal
William Roy (Plaintiff) Respondent. 1916: May 16. Present: Sir Charles Fitzpatrick C.J. and Davies, Idington, Anglin and Brodeur JJ.
-
1,717.
Canada Cement Co. v. Fitzgerald - (1916) 53 SCR 263 - 1916-05-02
Supreme Court JudgmentsProperty law
DAVIES J.—I agree in dismissing this appeal for the reasons given by Sir William Meredith C.J. in the Appellate Division in delivering the judgment of that court.
-
1,718.
Southern Alberta Land Co. v. McLean (Rural Municipality) - (1916) 53 SCR 151 - 1916-05-02
Supreme Court JudgmentsMunicipal law
Williams v. Papworth[6]. The courts of Saskatchewan, in my opinion, have rightly held that the appellant was an "occupant" of land exempt from assessment within section 251 of the "Rural Municipality Act" and that its "interest therein" was assessable and liable to taxation, being "ratable land" under section 249, and
-
1,719.
Toronto Railway Co. v. City of Toronto - (1916) 53 SCR 222 - 1916-05-02
Supreme Court JudgmentsTransportation
But they rejected the contention of counsel for the Dominion railway company that, on the authority of Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Co. v. Fort William Land Investment Co.[25], the whole order should be rescinded. [...] Solicitor for the respondent the City of Toronto: William Johnston. [1] [1914] A.C. 1067.
-
1,720.
Ontario Asphalt Block Co. v. Montreuil - (1916) 52 SCR 541 - 1916-02-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsProperty law
Lehmann v. McArthur[26], at pp. 500 and 503; Williams v. Glenton[27], at pp. 208-9, and Godwin v. Francis[28], at p. 306.
-
1,721.
Wood v. Gauld - (1916) 53 SCR 51 - 1916-02-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
William A. Wood (Plaintiff) Appellant; and John Gordon Gauld and Others (Defendants) Respondents. [...] 1. Whether William Augustus Wood, surviving partner of Wood, Vallance & Co., is entitled to take over the interest of the William Vallance Estate in the said co-partnership assets by paying to his estate the amount of his capital with interest and profits. [...] 2. Whether the goodwill of the business of Wood, Vallance & Co. enures to the benefit of the estate of the said William Vallance, as well as to the surviving partner, the said William A. Wood.
-
1,722.
Kohler v. Thorold Natural Gas Co. - (1916) 52 SCR 514 - 1916-02-14
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
And whereas by a contract made between William J. Aikens, ‘Frank R. Lalor and S. A. Beck, of the one part, and the company of the other part, bearing date the 28th day of June, 1911, the company agreed to purchase gas from the said Aikens, Lalor and Beck as therein stated;
-
1,723.
Roche v. Johnson - (1916) 53 SCR 18 - 1916-02-14
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
William Roche (Defendant) Appellant; and Sarah Frances Johnson (Plaintiff) Respondent. [...] "It is hereby agreed by and between William H. Johnson, of Halifax, in the County of Halifax, of the first part and William Roche, of Halifax, aforesaid of the second part: That the party of the first part agrees to sell and the party of the second part agrees to purchase four square miles of coal lands at Chimney Corner in [...] is: What kind of shares did W. H. Johnson stipulate for and William Roche undertake to deliver—shares in a company merely chartered, without capital or property, and with no prospect of being in a position to commence operations within any reasonable time, or shares in an organized company with sufficient capital provided
-
1,724.
Marwick and Mitchell v. Kerr - (1916) 53 SCR 1 - 1916-02-01
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
On going over to England, in the summer of 1911, Mr. Marwick met Sir William Peat, the head of the firm of W. P. Peat & Co., who were carrying on, in England, in the United States and in Canada, a similar and competitive business of chartered accountants.
-
1,725.
North-West Theatre Co. v. MacKinnon - (1916) 52 SCR 588 - 1916-02-01
Supreme Court JudgmentsStatutes
A casual consideration of the reference thereto in Williams on Executors (10 ed.) page 1389, especially note (m), seems to indicate that the executor would not, unless entering and holding possession, incur personal liability.