Advanced Search
- All Databases (4,782)
- Decisions (2,369)
- Resources (2,169)
2,369 result(s)
-
1,951.
Clergue v. Humphrey - (1900) 31 SCR 66 - 1900-11-13
Supreme Court JudgmentsAction
Samuel F. Humphrey and William S. Adams, Executors of David Bugbee, Deceased (Plaintiffs) Respondents. [...] Ker v. Williams[2]; United Telephone Co. v. Tasker[3]; Lancaster v. Moss[4].
-
1,952.
L'Association Pharmaceutique de Québec v. Livernois - (1900) 31 SCR 43 - 1900-11-13
Supreme Court JudgmentsAppeal
The amending Act passed pending this litigation cannot affect the proceedings it cannot be construed retrospectively; Maxwell, Statutes (3ed.) pp. 588, 589; 50 Vict. ch. 5 s. 7 (Que.); R. S. Q. Art. 11; Couture v. Bouchard ([4]); Williams v. Irvine ([5]).
-
1,953.
Ryan v. Willoughby - (1900) 31 SCR 33 - 1900-11-12
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
William Willoughby (Defendant) Respondent. 1900: October 31; 1900: November 2, 12.
-
1,954.
City of Montreal v. Hogan - (1900) 31 SCR 1 - 1900-10-22
Supreme Court JudgmentsAppeal
" Piché v. City of Quebec ([12]); Férrier v. Trépannier ([13]); Gorman v Dixon ([14]); Williams v. Leonard & Sons ([15]) ; Lumbers v. Gold Medal Furniture Manufacturing Co. ([16]).
-
1,955.
Allan v. Price - (1900) 30 SCR 536 - 1900-10-08
Supreme Court JudgmentsSale
WILLIAM PRICE (DEFENDANT) Respondent. 1900: Oct 5; 1900: Oct 8 PRESENT:—Taschereau, Gwynne, Sedgewick, King and Girouard JJ.
-
1,956.
City of Montreal v. Bélanger - (1900) 30 SCR 574 - 1900-10-08
Supreme Court JudgmentsExpropriation
The following authorities are cited: — Angell on Highways (2 ed.) pp. 215-226; In re William and Anthony Streets ([3]); in re John and Cherry Streets ([4]); In re Pearl Street ([5]); Morrison v. Mayor of Montreal ([6]); Lemoine v. City of Montreal ([7]); Benning v. Atlantic & Northwest Railway Col ([8]); Atlantic &
-
1,957.
Michaels v. Michaels - (1900) 30 SCR 547 - 1900-10-08
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
See Williams on Executors (9 ed.) pp. 739 and 798; also [Page 458] Fleet v. Perrins[1], per Blackburn J. at p. 541-2,(1868), decided before the earliest Married Woman's Property Act; Datton y. Midland Counties Railway Co.[2]; Gates v. Madeley[3], per Parke B. at page 427; Richards v. Richards[4]; Sherrington v. Yates[5];
-
1,958.
Price v. LeBlond - (1900) 30 SCR 539 - 1900-10-08
Supreme Court JudgmentsLease
WILLIAM PRICE AND AMOS COLSTON, EXECUTORS OF THE LATE EVAN JOHN PRICE (PLAINTIFFS)
-
1,959.
Sutherland-Innes Co. v. Romney (Township) - (1900) 30 SCR 495 - 1900-10-04
Supreme Court JudgmentsMunicipal law
This appears to be the effect of the judgment of the Privy Council in Williams v. Corporation of Raleigh[9].
-
1,960.
Dueber Watch Case Manufacturing Co. v. Taggart - (1900) 30 SCR 373 - 1900-06-12
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
The business was then carried on by Moore on behalf of the plaintiffs, or I should rather say by the plaintiffs through the intervention of Moore, who placed Taggart and one Williams acting in the interest of Buntin, Reid & Co., in possession of the stock in trade conveyed by Clarkson, and of such other goods as the
-
1,961.
Hibben v. Collister - (1900) 30 SCR 459 - 1900-06-12
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
The share of the said Christian William Kammerer to be 208/538. The share of the said William Henry Bone to be 165/538. [...] "1. That the said Thomas Napier Hibben, Christian William Kammerer and William Henry Bone will become and remain partners in the business aforesaid for the term of seven years from the date of these presents if they shall so long live. [...] 8. The said Thomas Napier Hibben, C. W. A. Kammerer and William Henry Bone carried on the business under the said partnership deed until the death of the said Thomas Napier Hibben, and thereafter the said Janet Parker Hibben and Christian William August Kammerer and William Henry Bone carried on the said business under the
-
1,962.
Parsons et al. v. Hart - (1900) 30 SCR 473 - 1900-06-12
Supreme Court JudgmentsCivil law
WILLIAM A. PICK, Master. The declaration of the respondent contained the following statements :
-
1,963.
Waters v. Manigault - (1900) 30 SCR 304 - 1900-05-23
Supreme Court JudgmentsAppeal
William M. Manigault and Others (Defendants) Respondent. 1900: May 23.
-
1,964.
Cully v. Ferdais - (1900) 30 SCR 330 - 1900-05-17
Supreme Court JudgmentsAppeal
WILLIAM CULLY (OPPOSANT) Appellant; And FRANCOIS ALIAS FRANCIS FER DAIS (CONTESTANT)
-
1,965.
Leak v. Toronto (City) - (1900) 30 SCR 321 - 1900-04-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsExpropriation
William Leak (Plaintiff) Appellant; and The Corporation of the City of Toronto (Defendant) Respondent.
-
1,966.
Asbestos & Asbestic Co. v. Durand - (1900) 30 SCR 285 - 1900-04-02
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
It appears from the evidence of "Williams the superintendent of the mine, that the daily average use was about four boxes and that the course of business was that a person specially entrusted with the duty would, in the morning and again at noon, carry two of the boxes from the magazine to the hoisting engine room, were
-
1,967.
Halifax Electric Tramway Co. v. Inglis - (1900) 30 SCR 256 - 1900-04-02
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
William P. C. Inglis (Plaintiff) Respondent 1900: Feb. 21, 22; 1900: April 2. [...] He also cited with approbation the judgment of Mr. Justice Williams in Toomey v. London and Brighton Railway Co.[7], who enunciates the rule thus.
-
1,968.
Hart v. McMullen - (1900) 30 SCR 245 - 1900-04-02
Supreme Court JudgmentsSale
See notes on Pinnington v. Galland and Hall v. Lund[38]; Washburn on Easements, p. 58; Rackley v. Sprague[39], and cases there cited; Hathorn v. Stinson[40]; Baker v. Bessey[41]; Richardson v. Bigtlow[42]; Lammott v. Ewers[43]; Oakley v. Stanley[44]; Bayley v. Great Western Railway Co.[45]; Broomfield v. Williams[46]. [...] Solicitor for the appellant: William A. Henry. Solicitor for the respondent: Norman J. Layton.
-
1,969.
Handley et al. Archibald - (1899) 30 SCR 130 - 1899-11-29
Supreme Court JudgmentsProperty law
I don't know that Matheson gave the keys to my brother William—William pays no rent—I just allow him to occupy. [...] The latter says first that the keys were given up by Matheson to William, afterwards he says he does not know whether Matheson did give William the keys or not. [...] Then he says William paid no rent, "I just allow him to occupy." This does not prove that William is a tenant under John R. Handley.
-
1,970.
Wood v. Canadian Pacific Railway Co. - (1899) 30 SCR 110 - 1899-11-07
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
William David Wood (Plaintiff) Appellant; and The Canadian Pacific Rail Way Company (Defendant) Respondent. [...] Nesbitt Q.C. for the respondent, cited Johnson v. Lindsay & Co.[5] ; Williams v. Bartling[6] ; Williams v. Birmingham Battery & Metal Co.[7].
-
1,971.
Tucker v. Young - (1899) 30 SCR 185 - 1899-10-27
Supreme Court JudgmentsAppeal
William S. Tucker (Defendant) Appellant; and William Young and John W. Young (Plaintiffs) Respondents.
-
1,972.
Jamieson v. London and Canadian Loan and Agency Co. - (1899) 30 SCR 14 - 1899-10-24
Supreme Court JudgmentsPriorities and hypothecs
See Treloar v. Bigge[2]; Williams v. Bosanquet[3]; Eaton v. Jacques[4]. [...] The dictum of Dallas C.J. in Williams v. Bosanquet[6], so far as it goes is favourable to the respondents.
-
1,973.
The Queen v. Poirier et al. - (1899) 30 SCR 36 - 1899-10-24
Supreme Court JudgmentsLease
the lease under which they claimed and which was set out in the petition of right and it appeared to be-in notarial form as between the Government of the Province of Quebec represented by William Alphonse Nantel in his capacity of Commissioner of Public Works, lessors, &c.
-
1,974.
The Queen v. Yule et al. - (1899) 30 SCR 24 - 1899-10-24
Supreme Court JudgmentsConstitutional law
William Andrew Yule and Others (Suppliants) Respondents 1899: Oct. 3, 4; 1899: Oct. 24
-
1,975.
Coplen v. Callahan - (1899) 30 SCR 555 - 1899-10-08
Supreme Court JudgmentsMines and minerals
Charles Callahan, Administrator of The Estate of William Callahan, Deceased (Plaintiff) Respondent. [...] William Callaghan then brought an "adverse action" under the British Columbia Mining Act, R.S.B. C. ch. 135. [...] Before the appeal to the court en banc the plaintiff William Callahan died and the action was revived in the name of his executor.