Advanced Search
- All Databases (4,782)
- Decisions (2,369)
- Resources (2,169)
2,369 result(s)
-
1,776.
National Trust Co., Limited v. Miller/Schmidt v. Miller - (1912) 46 SCR 45 - 1912-03-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsMines and minerals
William Miller and William D. Dickson and The Eastern Construction Company, Limited (Defendants) Respondents. [...] William Miller and William D. Dickson and The Eastern Construction Company, Limited (Defendants) Respondents. [...] Nuttall v. Bracewell[43]; Jeffries v. Williams[44]; Bibby v. Carter[45]; Smith’s L.C. (11 ed.), vol. 1, pp. 358-60.
-
1,777.
Smith v. National Trust Co. - (1912) 45 SCR 618 - 1912-03-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsPriorities and hypothecs
William J. Smith (Plaintiff) Appellant; and The National Trust Co. (Defendants) Respondents. [...] I may observe that notwithstanding the profuse quotations from the opinions expressed here in disposing of the case of Williams v. Box[13], I fail to see the bearing of that case or what was said therein on this. [...] Williams v. Box[26]. I make this passing allusion only because it is illustrative of the equitable jurisdiction which the statute, notwithstanding its sweeping terms, should be held not to have destroyed.
-
1,778.
Evans v. Evans - (1912) 50 SCR 262 - 1912-02-22
Supreme Court JudgmentsProperty law
E. B. Williams for the appellant. C. A. Grant for the respondent. [1] 19 West.
-
1,779.
McKillop & Benjafield v. Alexander - (1912) 45 SCR 551 - 1912-02-20
Supreme Court JudgmentsProperty law
He proceeds to quote from Sir William Grant in Jones v. Gibbons[3], at page 410, and cites Wilmot v. Pike (1845)[4].
-
1,780.
Shawinigan Hydro-Electric Co. v. Shawinigan Water and Power Co. - (1912) 45 SCR 585 - 1912-02-20
Supreme Court JudgmentsMunicipal law
to the succession of the late William Burn to discharge the hypothec for that amount created by the company in favour of such succession.
-
1,781.
Ray v. Willson - (1911) 45 SCR 401 - 1911-12-22
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
I am also of opinion that the same conclusion will follow if it be considered upon the broad grounds upon which Vaughan Williams L.J. has based his judgment, in which I entirely concur. [...] There was a statement also made by the witness between his first statement to his own counsel and the first statement to the learned trial judge in which he refers to a note of another party for which Thompson was responsible and he says, speaking of what he held this note for: “there was a note of a man named Williams whom [...] Smith v. Prosser[35], at page 744, per Vaughan Williams L.J. The promissory notes never became negotiable instruments, the reason being that the defendant never issued them nor authorized any one else to issue them as negotiable instruments.
-
1,782.
British Columbia Land and Investment Agency v. Ishitaka - (1911) 45 SCR 302 - 1911-12-06
Supreme Court JudgmentsPriorities and hypothecs
We refer to Ex parte Danks[1] ; per Cranworth L.J.; Halsbury, vol. 7, pp. 419, 420, note (q) ; Hawkins v. Ramsbottom[2]; Major v. Ward[3] ; Williams v. Stern[4] ; Blumberg v. Life Interests and Reversionary Securities Corporation[5]. [...] The case of Williams v. Stern[15], so much relied upon, seems beside the point raised here entirely.
-
1,783.
Canadian Pacific Railway Co. et al. v. Board of trade of city of Regina - (1911) 45 SCR 321 - 1911-12-06
Supreme Court JudgmentsTransportation
Fort William to Winnipeg ................ 89 75 60 45 40 34 [...] "(j) In the present case, the City of Regina has complained that the rates to Regina, from Port William, are higher in proportion than the rates from Fort William to Winnipeg and are, therefore, unjustly discriminatory as between localities. [...] Fort William to Winnipeg than to Regina: (a) With regard to the Canadian Northern Railway Company; (6) with regard to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company?
-
1,784.
Clover Bar Coal Co. v. Humberstone et al. - (1911) 45 SCR 346 - 1911-12-06
Supreme Court JudgmentsTransportation
William Humberstone, The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and The Clover Bar Sand and Gravel Company Respondents.
-
1,785.
City of Vancouver v. McPhalen - (1911) 45 SCR 194 - 1911-11-06
Supreme Court JudgmentsMunicipal law
William A. McPhalen (Plaintiff) Respondent. 1911: May 2; 1911: November 6. [...] In Maguire v. Liverpool Corporation[41], at page 782, Vaughan Williams L.J. said:— [...] Local Board[53], Vaughan Williams L.J. thus discusses it at pages 784 and 785:—
-
1,786.
Morang & Co. v. LeSueur - (1911) 45 SCR 95 - 1911-10-03
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
William Dawson LeSueur (Plaintiff) Respondent. 1911: March 20; 1911: October 3. [...] In reference to your letter of the 7th, in which you accept our offer to do William Lyon Mackenzie for the sum of $500.00 payable in instalments of $250.00 as outlined. [...] In reference to your letter of the 7th, in which you accept our offer to do William Lyon Mackenzie for the sum of $500.00 payable in instalments of $250.00 as outlined.
-
1,787.
Coy v. Pommerenke - (1911) 44 SCR 543 - 1911-05-15
Supreme Court JudgmentsSale
William Henry Coy (Defendant) Appellant; and August Pommerenke (Plaintiff) Respondent. [...] William Pope Bate, Williams J. H. Murison and William H. DeVeber Defendants. [...] 1. That the title to the said land shall remain in the name of William H. Coy.
-
1,788.
Laidlaw v. Vaughan-Rhys - (1911) 44 SCR 458 - 1911-05-15
Supreme Court JudgmentsState
William Laidlaw (Defendant) Appellant; and Trevor J. Vaughan-Rhys (Plaintiff) Respondent.
-
1,789.
Toronto Ry. Co. v. Toms - (1911) 44 SCR 268 - 1911-04-03
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
William Toms (Plaintiff) Respondent. 1911: March 23; 1911: April 3.
-
1,790.
Garland, Son & Co. v. O'Reilly - (1911) 44 SCR 197 - 1911-02-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
Eliza O’Reilly (or Petrie) (Plaintiff), and Joseph O’Reilly and William O’Reilly, Executors of the Estate of the Said Edward O’Reilly, Deceased (Defendants) Respondents.
-
1,791.
Goodison Thresher Co. v. Township of McNab - (1910) 44 SCR 187 - 1910-12-23
Supreme Court JudgmentsStatutes
William White K.C. and W.M. Douglas K.C. for the respondent. THE CHIEF JUSTICE (dissenting).—I am of opinion that this appeal should be allowed for the reasons stated by Chief Justice Moss.
-
1,792.
The King v. St. Catharines Hydraulic Co. - (1910) 43 SCR 595 - 1910-11-02
Supreme Court JudgmentsLease
See Lewis v. Stephenson[1]; Nudell v. Williams[2]; Sears v. City of St. John[3].
-
1,793.
Williams v. Box - (1910) 44 SCR 1 - 1910-11-02
Supreme Court JudgmentsProperty law
Williams v. Box, , (1910) 44 SCR 1 Supreme Court of Canada Williams v. Box, [1910] S.C.R. 1 [...] Jane Williams (Plaintiff) Appellant; and John Box (Defendant) Respondent.
-
1,794.
Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Co. v. City of Fort William - (1910) 43 SCR 412 - 1910-06-15
Supreme Court JudgmentsTransportation
Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Co. v. City of Fort William, , (1910) 43 SCR 412 [...] The City of Fort William, Certain Landowners in the city of Fort William, and The Fort William Land Investment Company Respondents. [...] Chrysler K.C. for the respondent, the City of Fort William. Sinclair K.C. for certain landowners, in Fort William, respondents.
-
1,795.
Ontario Bank v. McAllister - (1910) 43 SCR 338 - 1910-06-15
Supreme Court JudgmentsFinancial institutions
Williams v. Hedley[31]. But the fact that the contract is in its most substantial parts an executed contract, that the contemplated illegality has been consummated and that rescission is now impossible would prevent the granting of this questionable relief if it were sought.
-
1,796.
Lovitt v. The King - (1910) 43 SCR 106 - 1910-03-11
Supreme Court JudgmentsEstates
William Pugsley, Attorney-General, New Brunswick." [Page 111] The above specifies all the provisions of the will annexed thereto as stated in the first paragraph which are material to the present appeal. [...] Ingle v. Richards[35]; Whitehead v. Taylor[36]; Williams on Executors, p. 214. [...] Solicitor for the respondent: William Pugsley. [1] 37 N.B. Rep. 558
-
1,797.
Union Bank v. Clark - (1910) 43 SCR 299 - 1910-03-11
Supreme Court JudgmentsGuarantee and suretyship
Williams on Executors (10 ed.), pp. 1430-1433, 1554; Farhall v. Farhall[2]; Re Evans[3].
-
1,798.
Cunard v. The King - (1910) 43 SCR 88 - 1910-02-22
Supreme Court JudgmentsExpropriation
William Samuel Cunard and Others (Defendants) Appellants; and His Majesty The King (Plaintiff) Respondent.
-
1,799.
Weller v. McDonald-McMillan Co. - (1910) 43 SCR 85 - 1910-02-17
Supreme Court JudgmentsAppeal
William John Weller (Defendent) Appellant; and The McDonald-McMillan Company (Plaintiffs) Respondents.
-
1,800.
Grand Trunk Railway Co. v. City of Toronto - (1910) 42 SCR 613 - 1910-02-15
Supreme Court JudgmentsTransportation
Williams v. Irvine[5]. See also decisions quoted in Am. & Eng, Encycl. of Law, vo. [...] Therefore, as Williams J. has stated, a new authority was given to the Native Land Court as regards both land and matters of account. [...] Williams v. Adams[28]. The Board had authority to abrogate the Yonge Street bridge order of the former Railway Committee of the Privy Council (R.S.C. [1906] ch. 37, section 32 (2)).