Advanced Search
- All Databases (2,511)
- Decisions (1,094)
- Resources (1,417)
1,094 result(s)
-
801.
Wright & Carson v. Brake Service Ltd. - [1926] SCR 434 - 1926-05-04
Supreme Court JudgmentsIntellectual property
W. L. Scott K.C. for the respondent. Idington J:—This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Maclean, the President of the Exchequer Court, wherein the validity of a patent of invention granted under the Patent Act, R.S.C. 1906, c 69, was in question, and said learned trial judge upon the facts found by him, and his [...] Solicitors for the respondent: Ewart, Scott, Kelley and Kelley. [1] [1925] Ex. C.R. 127.
-
802.
Peninsular Sugar Co. v. Howlett - [1926] SCR 18 - 1925-12-18
Supreme Court JudgmentsSale
H.J. Scott K.C. for the appellant G.W.G. Winnett for the respondent.
-
803.
California Prune & Apricot Growers, Inc. v. Baird and Peters - [1926] SCR 208 - 1925-12-10
Supreme Court JudgmentsAgency
Wallace K.C. and W. R. Scott for the appellant. Harrison K.C. for the respondent.
-
804.
Huffman v. Ross - [1926] SCR 5 - 1925-12-10
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
H. J. Scott K.C. for the appellant. W. Nesbitt K.C. and J. A. McEvoy for the respondent.
-
805.
Leduc v. La Banque d'Hochelaga - [1926] SCR 76 - 1925-12-10
Supreme Court JudgmentsFinancial institutions
[15] [1837] 4 Scott 50. [16] M.L.R. 3 Q.B. 232. [17] Q.R. 21 K.B. 302.
-
806.
Northern Grain Co. v. Goderich Elevator & Transit Co. - [1926] SCR 120 - 1925-12-10
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
H.J. Scott K.C. for the respondent. The judgment of the court was delivered by
-
807.
Corporation Agencies Ltd. v. Home Bank of Canada - [1925] SCR 706 - 1925-11-02
Supreme Court JudgmentsFinancial institutions
Mr. Scott, the manager of the respondent bank, tells us, however, why it was that he took the cheques. [...] Mr. Scott gave the following testimony: Q. P.C.-85 is a cheque dated November 1, 1919, for $4,000; that cheque was brought to your personal notice and initialed by you? [...] Q. Did it not sound a note of warning to you, Mr. Scott, when Mr. C. H. Cahan, Jr., was depositing cheques of a company of which he was director to his own personal credit?
-
808.
Lingle v. Knox Bros Ltd. - [1925] SCR 659 - 1925-10-06
Supreme Court JudgmentsAction
H. J. Scott, K.C. for the respondent. Idington, J.—Accepting, as this court is accustomed to do, the finding of fact by two concurrent courts below, unless some strong reason put forward for doubting the accuracy thereof, I have considered the relevant law applicable thereto, and see no reason for doubting the accurate
-
809.
Barrowman v. The Permutit Co. - [1925] SCR 685 - 1925-05-05
Supreme Court JudgmentsAppeal
Tilley K.C. and W. L. Scott K.C. for the appellant, Lafleur K.C., R. S. Smart and J. L. McDougall for the respondent.
-
810.
Orpen v. Roberts - [1925] SCR 364 - 1925-02-03
Supreme Court JudgmentsAppeal
H.J. Scott K.C. for the appellant. Robertson K.C. and Barlow for the respondent Roberts.
-
811.
Middlebro v. Ryan - [1925] SCR 10 - 1924-12-30
Supreme Court JudgmentsEstates
H.J. Scott K.C. for the respondents. The judgment of the majority of the court (Anglin C.J.C. and Duff, Mignault, Newcombe and Rinfret JJ.) was written by
-
812.
The King v. Bell - [1925] SCR 59 - 1924-12-01
Supreme Court JudgmentsAppeal
D'Arcy Scott contra. The judgment of the majority of the court (Anglin C.J.C. and Mignault, Newcombe and Rinfret JJ.) was delivered by
-
813.
Canadian Ruthenian Catholic Mission of St. Basil the Great in Canada v. Mundare School District No. 1603 - [1924] SCR 620 - 1924-11-19
Supreme Court JudgmentsTaxation
W. L. Scott K.C. for the appellant. The building in question is used for church purposes and not used for any-other purpose for hire or reward.
-
814.
Lew v. Lee - [1924] SCR 612 - 1924-11-19
Supreme Court JudgmentsAction
Denison and Scott's House of Lords' Appeal Practice, 95, 199; Macqueen's House of Lords' Practice, pp. 241 et seq.
-
815.
Canadian Westing-House Co. v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co. - [1925] SCR 579 - 1924-06-08
Supreme Court JudgmentsTransportation
Solicitors for the appellant: Gibson, Levy, Scott & Inch. Solicitors for the respondent: MacMurchy & Spence.
-
816.
New Brunswick & Canada Railboard Co. v. New Brunswick Ry. Co. - [1924] SCR 450 - 1924-06-06
Supreme Court JudgmentsLease
Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Co. v. Minister of Finance of Newfoundland[7]; North British Ry. Co. v. Scott[8].
-
817.
Smith v. The Attorney General of Ontario - [1924] SCR 331 - 1924-05-22
Supreme Court JudgmentsConstitutional law
H.J. Scott K.C. and Tilley K.C. for the appellant. When the resolution purporting to bring Part IV of the Canada Temperance Act into force in Ontario there was no law in the province “prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes.” The Ontario Temperance Act which allowed native wine to be sold and
-
818.
Nutson v. Hanrahan - [1925] SCR 662 - 1924-05-13
Supreme Court JudgmentsAction
H.J. Scott, K.C. for the respondent. IDINGTON, J.—Accepting, as this court is accustomed to do, the finding of fact by two concurrent courts below, unless some strong reason put forward for doubting the accuracy thereof, I have considered the relevant law applicable thereto, and see no reason for doubting the accurate
-
819.
Diamond v. The Western Realty Co. - [1924] SCR 308 - 1924-04-22
Supreme Court JudgmentsAction
H.J. Scott K.C. and Newman for the respondents. THE CHIEF JUSTICE.—For the reasons stated by my brother Duff, I would dismiss this appeal with costs. [...] DUFF J.—Effect must, I think, be given to Mr. Scott’s objection that sub-paragraph (b) of the fourth paragraph of the judgment appealed from, in which the court refuses to make any order in respect of the residue of the moneys paid into court until the rights of the mortgagees have been ascertained, and without notice to
-
820.
Western Assurance Company v. Caplan - [1924] SCR 227 - 1924-04-22
Supreme Court JudgmentsInsurance
H.J. Scott K.C. for the respondent relied on Rockmaker v. Motor Union Ins. Co.[2] as to the application of section 194 of the Insurance Act.
-
821.
Grand Trunk Ry. Co. of Canada v. Murphy - [1924] SCR 101 - 1923-12-31
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
H.J. Scott K.C. for the respondent. THE CHIEF JUSTICE.—This is an appeal from the judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario composed of four judges, the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, and Middleton, Latchford and Logie JJ. The Chief Justice and Middleton J. were to allow the appeal from the [...] The decisions in the cases of Glasscock v. London, Tilbury & Southend Railway[5]; Readhead v. Midland Railway Co.[6]; Scott v. London Dock Co.[7]; Bridges v. North London Railway Co.[8], cited by respondent’s counsel, are much more in point. [...] In his factum, Mr. Scott says:— The defendants brought about a dangerous situation to the plaintiff by telling him that the next station or the next stopping place was the place where the plaintiff desired to alight and then stopped the train without warning him that his destination had not been reached.
-
822.
Home Appliances Mfg. Co. v. The Oneida Community - [1923] SCR 570 - 1923-12-31
Supreme Court JudgmentsIntellectual property
W. L. Scott K.C. for the respondent. The word "Community" has become so identified with respondent's goods that any use of it by other manufacturers is calculated to deceive. [...] W. L. Scott K.C. for the respondent. The Chief Justice.—I am of the opinion that this appeal should be dismissed with costs. [...] Solicitors for the respondent: Ewart, Scott, Kelley & Kelley. [1] [1923] Ex. C.R. 44.
-
823.
Lukey v. Ruthenian Farmer's Elevator Co., Ltd - [1924] SCR 56 - 1923-12-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsConstitutional law
The evil aimed at by the legislation now claimed to be ultra vires existed long ago, as exemplified by the case of Scott v. Brown, Doering, McNab & Co.[25], and certainly needed a remedy within the powers of each local legislature where the evil existed.
-
824.
Reid v. Linnell - [1923] SCR 594 - 1923-06-15
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
In Scott v. The Fernie Lumber Co.[10], a decision pronounced in 1904, it was held by the full court that this enactment, which was then s. 66 of the Supreme Court Act, of 1904, had not wholly repealed the rule that a litigant is bound by the way in which he conducts his case at the trial, and that nothing in the section [...] Since that decision, s. 66 has been reenacted at least once without alteration, and as far as I am aware the principle laid down in Scott v. The Fernie Lumber Co.[11] has been acted upon by the British Columbia courts down to the present time.
-
825.
St. Paul Lumber Co. v. British Crown Assurance Corporation - [1923] SCR 515 - 1923-05-01
Supreme Court JudgmentsInsurance
I concur in the reasons for the judgment of the Appellate Division delivered by Mr. Justice Hyndman and concurred in by Chief Justice Scott, which clearly express my own views.