Advanced Search
- All Databases (2,511)
- Decisions (1,094)
- Resources (1,417)
1,094 result(s)
-
901.
B.C. Electric Ry. Co. v. v. v. and E. Ry. and Navigation Co. and the City of Vancouver - (1913) 48 SCR 98 - 1913-05-06
Supreme Court JudgmentsConstitutional law
H. L. Drayton, K.C., D’Arcy Scott, Chief Commissioner. Asst. Chief Commissioner.
-
902.
Stone v. Canadian Pacific Railway Co. - (1913) 47 SCR 634 - 1913-05-06
Supreme Court JudgmentsTransportation
Co. v. McDougall[4]; Marney v. Scott[5]; and the jury have found that such duty was not observed in this case.
-
903.
Toronto Railway Co. v. Fleming - (1913) 47 SCR 612 - 1913-05-06
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
In the circumstances of the case the principle laid down in Scott v. London and St. Katherine Docks Co.[4] should apply.
-
904.
Cross v. Carstairs - (1913) 47 SCR 559 - 1913-02-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsAppeal
APPEAL from a decision of the Supreme Court of Alberta[1], affirming, by an equal division of opinion, the judgment of Mr. Justice Scott[2] dismissing [...] DAVIES J.—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Alberta confirming, on an equal division of opinion, the decision of Mr. Justice Scott dismissing certain preliminary objections taken to a provincial election petition under the "Alberta Controverted Elections Act."
-
905.
Fraser v. Imperial Bank of Canada - (1912) 47 SCR 313 - 1912-11-26
Supreme Court JudgmentsFinancial institutions
Gorringe v. Irwell India Rubber Works[10]; Jones v. Jones[11]; Rochará v. Fulton[12]; Scott v. Lord Hastings[13]; In re Richards[14]; Ward v. Duncombe[15], per Herschell L.C., at page 378, and per Lord Macnaghten, at pages 391-394;
-
906.
Periard v. Bergeron - (1912) 47 SCR 289 - 1912-11-11
Supreme Court JudgmentsSale
Ewart K.C. and W. L. Scott for the respondents. DAVIES J.—I think this appeal must be allowed.
-
907.
In re Marriage Laws - (1912) 46 SCR 132 - 1912-06-17
Supreme Court JudgmentsConstitutional law
It may be open to argue that such holding as in the Millis Case[92] is not, and that the holding by Sir William Scott in Dalrymple v. Dalrymple[93], is law in Canada unless where declared otherwise.
-
908.
McKillop & Benjafield v. Alexander - (1912) 45 SCR 551 - 1912-02-20
Supreme Court JudgmentsProperty law
Solicitors for the appellants: Embury, Watkins & Scott. Solicitors for the respondent: Ferguson & McDermid.
-
909.
Clover Bar Coal Co. v. Humberstone et al. - (1911) 45 SCR 346 - 1911-12-06
Supreme Court JudgmentsTransportation
J. H. Leech K.C. and W. L. Scott for the appellants. Chrysler K.C. for the respondents. [...] I ought, perhaps, to refer to the point made by Mr, Scott, that the use of the appellants' spur for the purpose of affording facilities to the respondent is necessarily incompatible with the observance by the company of the condition prescribed by article 6 of the agreement that the use of the siding by or for the benefit
-
910.
Clarke v. Baillie - (1911) 45 SCR 50 - 1911-10-03
Supreme Court JudgmentsSecurities
[55] 4 Man. & Gr. 295 at pages 303-4, 325; 5 Scott, N.R. 1, 26. [56] H.L. Cas. 28, at pp. 35-6. [...] [69] 4 M. & Gr. 295, at pp. 303-4, 325; 5 Scott N.R. 1, at p. 26. [70] [1908] 2 K.B. 514.
-
911.
Alberta Railway and Irrigation Co. v. Alberta (Attorney-General) - (1911) 44 SCR 505 - 1911-05-15
Supreme Court JudgmentsTransportation
APPEAL from the judgment of the Supreme Court of Alberta[1], affirming the judgment of Scott J., by which the action was maintained.
-
912.
Coy v. Pommerenke - (1911) 44 SCR 543 - 1911-05-15
Supreme Court JudgmentsSale
The result was he had no agreement which in law he could have enforced against the respondent; see Williams v. Scott[7]; Delves v. Gray[8]; and cases cited there, if authority needed for so plain a proposition of law.
-
913.
Laidlaw v. Vaughan-Rhys - (1911) 44 SCR 458 - 1911-05-15
Supreme Court JudgmentsState
Scott v. Benedict[2], decided in this court, and of which only a note is reported in our reports, was cited.
-
914.
Canadian Railway Accident Insurance Co. v. Haines - (1911) 44 SCR 386 - 1911-04-03
Supreme Court JudgmentsInsurance
Greenwood v. Sutcliffe[3]; Scott v. Uxbridge and Rickmansworth Railway Co.[4].
-
915.
Blackwoods Limited v. Canadian Northern Railway Co. - (1910) 44 SCR 92 - 1910-12-09
Supreme Court JudgmentsTransportation
W. L. Scott for the appellants. Chrysler K.C. for the respondents.
-
916.
David v. Swift - (1910) 44 SCR 179 - 1910-12-07
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
It is unnecessary to refer to authorities from Scott v. Avery[2], down to date, as the answer to the question depends in each case upon the language the parties have used in their contract.
-
917.
Prairie City Oil Co. v. Standard Mutual Fire Insurance Co. - (1910) 44 SCR 40 - 1910-11-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsInsurance
See also Scott v. Phœnix Assurance Co.[7], decided in the Privy Council
-
918.
Shawinigan Hydro-Electric Co. v. Shawinigan Water and Power Co. - (1910) 43 SCR 650 - 1910-11-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsAppeal
Coté v. The James Richardson Co.[29], at page 49; Robinson, Little & Co. v. Scott & Son[30].
-
919.
Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Co. v. City of Fort William - (1910) 43 SCR 412 - 1910-06-15
Supreme Court JudgmentsTransportation
D'Arcy Tate and W. L. Scott for the appellants. Chrysler K.C. for the respondent, the City of Fort William.
-
920.
Ontario Bank v. McAllister - (1910) 43 SCR 338 - 1910-06-15
Supreme Court JudgmentsFinancial institutions
Great Eastern Railway Co.20 But Lord Watson certainly understood him to use it as equivalent to what might be derived by reasonable implication from the language of the Act to which the company owed its constitution; and Lord Selborne himself, to judge from his language in Murray v. Scott[21] could have meant nothing more. [...] Scott v. Brown, Docring, McNab & Co.[30] By section 76(2) of the present “Bank Act” (section 64 of the Act of 1890) it is enacted that
-
921.
Bing Kee and Lung Chung v. Yick Chong - (1910) 43 SCR 334 - 1910-05-04
Supreme Court JudgmentsLease
W. L. Scott for the appellants. Travers Lewis K.C. for the respondent.
-
922.
Grand Trunk Railway Co. v. British American Oil Co. - (1910) 43 SCR 311 - 1910-05-03
Supreme Court JudgmentsTransportation
"D'Arcy Scott, "Assistant Chief Commissioner, "Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada."
-
923.
Lovitt v. The King - (1910) 43 SCR 106 - 1910-03-11
Supreme Court JudgmentsEstates
Two years afterwards the question was raised in British Columbia, in Re Scott McDonald[31], concerning a deposit in the Bank of Montreal evidenced by a receipt in the same form.
-
924.
Cunard v. The King - (1910) 43 SCR 88 - 1910-02-22
Supreme Court JudgmentsExpropriation
[9] 4 M. & Gr. 995; 5 Scott N.R. 689. [10] 7 Moo. P.C. 77. [11] 9 Can. S.C.R. 239.
-
925.
Grand Trunk Railway Co. v. City of Toronto - (1910) 42 SCR 613 - 1910-02-15
Supreme Court JudgmentsTransportation
and that from the point of junction of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the Grand Trunk elevated tracks at or near Berkeley Street to Scott Street, the centre line of the viaduct shall be located on the southerly boundary of the Esplanade, except at the curve in the tracks in the vicinity of West Market Street.