Advanced Search
- All Databases (4,782)
- Decisions (2,369)
- Resources (2,169)
2,369 result(s)
-
1,801.
Peters v. Perras - (1909) 42 SCR 361 - 1909-11-03
Supreme Court JudgmentsCourts
William R. Peters (Plaintiff) Appellant; and Joseph Perras and others (Defendants) Respondents
-
1,802.
American-Abell Engine and Thresher Co. v. McMillan - (1909) 42 SCR 377 - 1909-10-20
Supreme Court JudgmentsProperty law
John McMillan and William James Doig (Defendants) Respondents. 1909: October 14; 1909: October 20.
-
1,803.
Quebec West Election Case (Price v. Power) - (1909) 42 SCR 140 - 1909-05-10
Supreme Court JudgmentsElections
William Price (Respondent) Appellant; and Edward Neville, Junior (Petitioner) Respondent. [...] William Power (Respondent) Appellant; and William Price (Cross-Petitioner) Respondent. [...] 11. And your petitioner also says that the said William Power, during the said election, directly and indirectly, by himself and by his agents, with his actual knowledge, consent and privity, has committed acts and the offence of undue influence.
-
1,804.
Butler v. Murphy & Co. - (1909) 41 SCR 618 - 1909-05-04
Supreme Court JudgmentsAgency
Dear Sir,—Yours of recent date enclosing market report rec'd. I shall be North in about four weeks to look after the new crop, and if you can sell No. 2 oats for 37c. or better, in store Fort William, you had better sell 4,000 bus. for me, and I will be up at Snowflake then so I can look after the loading of them, and I [...] with his crop of 1907, wrote them on the 2nd of August of that year asking the best price for a certain quality of oats "on track at Snowflake" (which was a Canadian Pacific Railway station near his Manitoba farm), "or store Winnipeg, or Fort William" and to have daily market list sent to him for the next thirty days. [...] Dear Sir,—Yours of recent date enclosing market report rec'd. I shall be North in about four weeks to look after the new crop and if you can sell No. 2 oats for 37c. or better, in store Fort William, you had better sell 4,000 bus. for me, and I will be up at Snowflake then so I can look after the loading of them, and I will
-
1,805.
Clergue v. Vivian & Co. - (1909) 41 SCR 607 - 1909-04-05
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
On this branch of the case we rely on Laird v. Pim[3]; Moor v. Roberts[4]; Dart (7 ed.), page 999; Sugden on Vendors (14 ed.), pages 239-40, and note; Poole v. Hill[5]; East London Union v. Metropolitan Railway Co.[6]; Pordage v. Cole[7]; Dunlop v. Grote[8]; Thomas and Beatty v. Ross[9]; McArthur v. Winslow[10]; Williams
-
1,806.
Equity Fire Ins. Co. v. Thompson - (1909) 41 SCR 491 - 1909-04-05
Supreme Court JudgmentsInsurance
Before its adoption in Ontario in 1876 it had received a like construction in the NewYork Courts, Williams v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co.[23], in 1874, and I respectfully agree in the statement of the Chief Justice of Ontario in the present case that [...] A similar view was expressed by Vaughan-Williams L.J., in Southwark Union v. City of London Union[27]. [...] But the decisions in Williams v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co.[41]; Putnam v. Commonwealth Ins. Co.[42]; Mayor of New York v. Hamilton Fire Ins. Co.[43]; Hynds v. Schenectady County Mut. Ins. Co.[44]; Springfield Fire and Marine Ins. Co. v. Wade[45], and other American cases are not susceptible of this explanation.
-
1,807.
Porter v. Purdy - (1909) 41 SCR 471 - 1909-04-05
Supreme Court JudgmentsLease
valued by two indifferent persons, one to be chosen by each party, which two parties, in case of disagreement, shall choose a third, the appraisement of whom, or any two of whom, shall be conclusive, as to the value of such buildings and improvements; at which time it shall be in the option of the said Charles William K. [...] Nudell v. Williams[5] is in the same direction. The observations by eminent judges in Hamlyn & Co. v. Wood & Co.[6] to the effect that cases upon other contracts are of little service stand good, yet the authorities largely got together in the argument of that case, and on the same subject of necessary implication [...] whom, or any two of them, shall be conclusive as to the value of such buildings and improvements; at which time it shall be in the option of the said Charles William K. Cunard, his heirs and assigns, to pay to the said Anne Cunard, her executors, administrators and assigns, such appraised value, or to continue the lease of
-
1,808.
Stuart v. Bank of Montreal - (1909) 41 SCR 516 - 1909-04-05
Supreme Court JudgmentsFamily law
I might well adopt and apply the language used in relation to a more extended view of the nature of authority by Sir William Markby, in his book on “Elements of Law,” par. 99: [...] In Re North-Western Rubber Co. and Hiittenbach & Co.[79] Vaughan-Williams L.J., referring to Hutcheson & Co. v. Eaton & Son[80], said: [...] Other recent instances may be found in the following cases: In re Coles and Ravenshear[81]; In re Russian Petroleum and Liquid Fuel Co.[82]; Fear v. Morgan[83]; In re Stucley[84]; Fitzroy v. Cave[85]; Williams v. Hunt[86], and In re Ambler; Woodhead v. Ambler[87].
-
1,809.
Peterborough West Election Case (Stratton v. Burnham) - (1909) 41 SCR 410 - 1909-03-29
Supreme Court JudgmentsElections
"I, William Henry Moore, of the City of Peterborough in the County of Peterborough, solicitor, make oath and say: [...] Solicitor for the respondent: William H. Moore. [1] 38 Can. S.C.R. 207.
-
1,810.
Faulkner v. City of Ottawa - (1909) 41 SCR 190 - 1909-02-12
Supreme Court JudgmentsMunicipal law
Examples of the rigid application of the principle will be found in Williams v. Corporation of Raleigh[3], and in East Freemantle Corporation v. Annois[4].
-
1,811.
Province of Ontario v. Dominion of Canada - (1909) 42 SCR 1 - 1909-02-12
Supreme Court JudgmentsConstitutional law
As illustrating that to some extent I want to refer to a case, Williams v. Howarth[18]. [...] That is a no more extraordinary result I submit than that which took place in the case of Williams v. Howarth[23], about the soldier.
-
1,812.
Vaughan v. Eastern Townships Bank - (1909) 41 SCR 286 - 1909-02-12
Supreme Court JudgmentsTransportation
William H Covert (Plaintiffs) Respondents. 1908: October 6, 7; 1909: February 12. [...] That being so when the pre-emption was surrendered to the Crown the water right passed with it without any express act or mention; see Williams on Real Property (ed. 1892), p. 391, and authorities there cited.
-
1,813.
Ponton v. City of Winnipeg - (1909) 41 SCR 366 - 1909-01-15
Supreme Court JudgmentsAction
William Nisbet Ponton (Plaintiff) Appellant; and The City of Winnipeg (Defendant) Respondent.
-
1,814.
Grimsby Park Co. v. Irving - (1908) 41 SCR 35 - 1908-12-15
Supreme Court JudgmentsAppeal
William H. Irving (Plaintiff) Respondent. 1908: November 12; 1908: December 15.
-
1,815.
Rhodes v. Perusse - (1908) 41 SCR 264 - 1908-12-15
Supreme Court JudgmentsTransportation
the public highway or cove road, in rear toward the north-west by a reserved road or street on one side to the south-west by lot number three sold to the said William Simpson and on the other side to the north-east by a lane or passage of the width of twenty feet between the property above described and that of Benjamin [...] Bounded in front, towards the south-east by the public highway or cove road, in rear towards the north-west by a reserved road or street on one side to the south-west by lot number three sold to the said William Simpson and on the other side to the north-east by a lane or passage of the width of twenty feet between the
-
1,816.
The Bank of Ottawa v. Hood - (1908) 42 SCR 231 - 1908-12-01
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
be forwarded to William Hood & Son in payment of their work." This arrangement having been assented to by Brewder & McNaughton, the bank wrote to the respondent in regard to drawing the moneys in Montreal, referred to the correspondence with Brewder & McNaughton and enclosed a copy of their letter assenting to
-
1,817.
The King v. Desrosiers - (1908) 41 SCR 71 - 1908-12-01
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
See Viscount Canterbury v. The Queen[4], in which it was sought to make the late Queen liable upon a petition of right for a wrong done by a servant of William IV., and it was objected, first, that the Queen was not the personal representative of the late King, and, secondly, that if she was, the case was within the rule
-
1,818.
Blaine v. Jamieson - (1908) 41 SCR 25 - 1908-11-24
Supreme Court JudgmentsAppeal
William Jamieson Respondent. 1908: November 24. Present: Sir Charles Fitzpatrick C.J. and Girouard, Davies, Idington and Duff JJ.
-
1,819.
Ponton v. City of Winnipeg - (1908) 41 SCR 18 - 1908-10-27
Supreme Court JudgmentsMunicipal law
William Nisbet Ponton (Plaintiff) Appellant; and The City of Winnipeg (Defendant), Respondent.
-
1,820.
Emperor of Russia v. Proskouriakoff - (1908) 42 SCR 226 - 1908-10-07
Supreme Court JudgmentsCourts
See Williams v. Leonard[4], per Strong C.J., at page 410; and Green v. George[5], decided by this court on the 13th of November, 1907.
-
1,821.
Beatty v. Mathewson - (1908) 40 SCR 557 - 1908-10-06
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
Isabella Eliza Beatty, John D. Beatty and The William Beatty Estate (Defendants) Appellants; [...] William Mathewson (Plaintiff) Respondent. 1908: June 4; 1908: October 6. [...] The appellants, who are trustees under the will of one William Beatty, justify under a deed of conveyance dated 15th September, 1881, made between the respondents and Beatty.
-
1,822.
McGarvey v. McNally - (1908) 40 SCR 489 - 1908-06-30
Supreme Court JudgmentsEstates
William McNally, Ês Qualitê (Defendant) Respondent. 1908: June 10, 11; 1908: June 30. [...] "Mathieu J.—The plaintiff inscribed in review, from a judgment of the Superior Court (Fortin J.), rendered at Montreal 24th October, 1905, maintaining the pleas of the defendant, William McNally ês qualité, and dismissing her action, with costs. [...] The same direction is expressly given later: 'As to the balance or remainder of my estate, I give and bequeath the enjoyment and usufruct thereof to my daughter, Annie McGarvey, wife of William McNally,
-
1,823.
Goold v. Gillies - (1908) 40 SCR 437 - 1908-06-16
Supreme Court JudgmentsCommercial law
Solicitor for the respondent: William S. Gray. [1] 55 Ind. 205. [2] 12 Ont. App. R. 50; 13 Can. S.C.R. 1.
-
1,824.
Chisholm v. Chisholm - (1908) 40 SCR 115 - 1908-03-23
Supreme Court JudgmentsFamily law
William Chisholm (Defendant) Appellant; and Evelyn Chisholm (Plaintiff) Respondent.
-
1,825.
Inverness Railway & Coal Co. v. Jones et al. - (1908) 40 SCR 45 - 1908-03-23
Supreme Court JudgmentsTransportation
Sir Alfred Lewis Jones and William John Davey, Carrying on Business Under The Name and Style of Elder, Dempster & Co. (Defendants) Respondents. [...] Fr. Rec. 1898, 1, 331; The "Scarsdale"[6], and in the same case on appeal[7], per Vaughan Williams L.J., at page 257, per Sterling L.J., at page 258, and in another report[8], per Vaughan Williams L.J., at page 33, referring to the "Sailors' Word Book." [...] The orders therefor in each case were given by one Harling, the agent, at said port, of the William Peterson, Limited.