Advanced Search
- All Databases (4,782)
- Decisions (2,369)
- Resources (2,169)
2,369 result(s)
-
1,976.
Black et al. v. The Queen - (1899) 29 SCR 693 - 1899-10-03
Supreme Court JudgmentsGuarantee and suretyship
The form of this bond is not known to Quebec law, but it is sufficient under the statutes and it was by these statutes that the parties intended themselves to be bound; see Lafleur on Conflict of Laws, p. 149; Hamlyn v. Talisker Distillery[19]; and Colonial Bank V. Cady & Williams[20].
-
1,977.
Atlas Assurance Co. v. Brownwell - (1899) 29 SCR 537 - 1899-06-05
Supreme Court JudgmentsInsurance
Solicitor for the respondents: William T. Pipes. [1] 31 N. S. Rep. 348.
-
1,978.
Burris v. Rhind - (1899) 29 SCR 498 - 1899-06-05
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
The respondent William, then seventeen years of age, • remained at home. [...] After George's death William undertook the working of the farm, [Page 500] [...] Upon the return of the deed to William, the plaintiff, who was postmaster at the place where William resided, obtained thereby notice of its arrival.
-
1,979.
Carroll v. Erie County Natural Gas and Fuel Co. - (1899) 29 SCR 591 - 1899-06-05
Supreme Court JudgmentsAction
Samuel S. Carroll and William E. Carroll (Plaintiffs) Appellants; and
-
1,980.
Hyde v. Lindsay - (1899) 29 SCR 595 - 1899-06-05
Supreme Court JudgmentsEstates
We are therefore of opinion that the appeal should be allowed with costs before all the courts and that this action be referred to William L. Scott, Esquire, one of the masters of the High Court of Justice of Ontario, at Ottawa, to take an account of the amount reasonably and properly paid or incurred by appellant as such
-
1,981.
Williams v. Bartling et al. - (1899) 29 SCR 548 - 1899-06-05
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
Williams v. Bartling et al., (1899) 29 SCR 548 Supreme Court of Canada [...] William v. Bartling (1899) 29 SCR 548 Date: 1899-06-05 Josiah Williams (Plaintiff) [...] William W. Bartling and James C. Bartling (Defendants) Respondents
-
1,982.
Zwicker v. Feindel - (1899) 29 SCR 516 - 1899-06-05
Supreme Court JudgmentsSale
Burrowes v. Locke[2], at page 474; Williams v. Williams[3], at page 857; Berry v. Peek:[4], at page 360; Mills v. Fox[5], at pages 162-166; Hammersley v. De Biel[6], at pages 87-88; Hutlon v. Rossiter[7], at page 18.
-
1,983.
Zwicker v. Zwicker - (1899) 29 SCR 527 - 1899-06-05
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
causing it to be recorded, paying his share of the cost thereof, and in taking possession and claiming under it the property of Joseph Zwicker, prevent him from setting up any title inconsistent with the conveyance in question. 1 Williams on Executors, (9 ed.) 344, 345; Kenrick v. Burgess[7]; Whitehall v. Squire[8].
-
1,984.
Norwich Union Fire Ins. Co. v. LeBell - (1899) 29 SCR 470 - 1899-05-30
Supreme Court JudgmentsInsurance
Williams Personal Property (10 ed.) pp. 8 and 37. Lingley v. Queen Ins. Co.[19].
-
1,985.
Quebec Montmorency & Charlevoix Railway Co. v. Gibsone - (1899) 29 SCR 340 - 1899-02-22
Supreme Court JudgmentsExpropriation
WILLIAM WARING PRIMROSE GIBSONE AND OTHERS (PLAINTIFFS PAR REPRISE D'INSTANCE) [...] WILLIAM WARING PRIMROSE GIBSONE AND OTHERS (PLAINTIFFS PAR REPRISE D'INSTANCE)
-
1,986.
The Queen v. Ogilvie - (1899) 29 SCR 299 - 1899-02-22
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
Reference was also made to Williams v. Rawlinson[12], per Best C. J. at page 371; Harding v. Tifft[13], at page 464 to 466 as to undisclosed intention; Stone v. Seymour[14]; Robson v. McKoin[15]; Plomer v. Long[16]; Gordon v. Hobart[17]; Ex parte Whitworth[18]; Monger on Appropriation, p. 75 and cases there cited; Stamford
-
1,987.
Common v. McArthur - (1898) 29 SCR 239 - 1898-12-14
Supreme Court JudgmentsCommercial law
WILLIAM J. COMMON, ês qualité (PETITIONER) Appellant; And COLIN MCARTHUR, (CONTESTANT) [...] In January, 1897, the company had become insolvent and a winding-up order was made against it, the appellant William J. Common being appointed liquidator.
-
1,988.
Roberts v. Hawkins - (1898) 29 SCR 218 - 1898-12-14
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
DAVID ROBERTS AND WILLIAM THOMPSON (DEFENDANTS) Appellants; And HENRY HAWKINS, ês qualité (PLAINTIFF) [...] Was said injury caused by any fault or imprudence of said Herbert William Ball, and if so, state in what the same consisted? [...] Did said Herbert William Ball persist in remaining at the spot where the accident happened, notwithstanding defendants' warning asto the danger?
-
1,989.
Commercial Union Assurance Co. v. Temple - (1898) 29 SCR 206 - 1898-11-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsInsurance
Solicitor for the respondent: William Pugsley. [1] 12 Can. S. C. R. 446.
-
1,990.
Makins v. Piggott & Inglis - (1898) 29 SCR 188 - 1898-11-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
Wallace Nesbitt, (Gauld with him,) for the appellant, cited McGibbon v. The Northern Railway Co.[1]; Williams v. Eady[2]; Scott v. London and St. Katherine Docks Co.[3] at page 601; Broom’s Legal Maxims 298; Snyder v. Wheeling Electrical Company[4]; Beven on Negligence, 561; Pollock on Texts, (5 ed.) pp. 21-41; Clark v.
-
1,991.
Hyde v. Lindsay - (1898) 29 SCR 99 - 1898-11-02
Supreme Court JudgmentsAppeal
See Hurtubise v. Desmarteau[1]; Couture v. Bouchard[2]; Williams v. Irvine[3]; Cowen v. Evans[4]. [...] In the case of Williams v. Irvine[7], the action had been instituted in 1890, tried in June, 1891, and judgment reserved, subsequently given on the 17th November, 1891.
-
1,992.
Simpson et al. v. Palliser - (1898) 29 SCR 6 - 1898-10-10
Supreme Court JudgmentsAppeal
WILLIAM JOHN SIMPSON AND OTHERS (DEFENDANTS) Appellant; And JOSEPH PALLISER (PLAINTIFF)
-
1,993.
Grand Trunk Railway Co. of Canada v. Anderson - (1898) 28 SCR 541 - 1898-06-14
Supreme Court JudgmentsTransportation
On the 8th of February, 1895, one William McKenzie purchased from the railway company a return-ticket from the Village of Ailsa Craig, a station on the main line of the Grand Trunk Railway, to the City of London.
-
1,994.
Jordan v. Provincial Provident Institution - (1898) 28 SCR 554 - 1898-06-14
Supreme Court JudgmentsInsurance
We make special reference to the words of Sir William Ritchie, C.J., in FitzRandolph v. The Mutual Relief Society of Nova Scotia[11] at page 336. [...] avoid the policy if a statement of a material fact contained in the declaration is untrue, even though not to the knowledge of the assured; Porter, Insurance, (2 ed.) page 140; Macdonald v. Law Union Fire and Life Insurance Company[19]; Bunyon, Life Insurance, p. 41; Cooke, Life Insurance, p. 35; Duckett v. Williams[20].
-
1,995.
Murray v. Jenkins - (1898) 28 SCR 565 - 1898-06-14
Supreme Court JudgmentsSale
We contend that the memorandum in writing is insufficient under the statute of frauds; Williams v. Jordan[10]; Agnew, Statute of Frauds, p. 258.
-
1,996.
Province of Ontario & Province of Quebec v. Dominion of Canada. In re common School Fund & Lands - (1898) 28 SCR 609 - 1898-06-14
Supreme Court JudgmentsConstitutional law
Randall,[7]; Ingram v. Milnes,[8]; Smith v. Wilson,[9]; Bhear v. Harradine,[10]; Williams v. Wilson et al.[11]." [...] Signed, William McDougall, Commisssioner.' And then Mr. Shehyn continues:— [...] The question was passed upon by the executive on two or three different occasions, and it was treated as such, and the reason assigned by Mr. William MacDougall
-
1,997.
Smith v. The Saint John Railway Co. / Consolidated Electric Co. v. Atlantic Trust Co. / Consolidated Electric Co. v. Pratt - (1898) 28 SCR 603 - 1898-06-14
Supreme Court JudgmentsAppeal
Solicitor for the appellants: William Pugsley. Solicitor for the respondents, The St. John City Railway Company and others: Arthur I. Trueman.
-
1,998.
Wallace v. Lea - (1898) 28 SCR 595 - 1898-06-14
Supreme Court JudgmentsProperty law
Margaret Wallace and William Wallace, Her Husband (Defendants) Appellants
-
1,999.
Ostrom v. Sills - (1898) 28 SCR 485 - 1898-05-14
Supreme Court JudgmentsProperty law
Clute Q.C. and Williams for the respondents. The principles applicable to public waters do not extend to the flow of mere surface water. [...] Solicitors for the respondent: Clute & Williams. [1] 24 Ont. App. R. 526.
-
2,000.
Cummings v. Taylor - (1898) 28 SCR 337 - 1898-05-06
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
William Cummings & Sons (Defendants) Appellants And Robert Taylor and Bauld Gibson & Co. (Plaintiffs) [...] William Cummings & Son being creditors of Neil McKinnon received the assets under the deed on account of the claim due to them by McKinnon and for which they were preferred. 2ndly. [...] After that determination the plaintiff Taylor instituted these proceedings, making the insolvent trustee under the assignment, and William Cummings & Sons and the Peoples' Bank of Halifax, the latter having received benefits under it, defendants, by which they sought:—