Advanced Search
- All Databases (4,782)
- Decisions (2,369)
- Resources (2,169)
2,369 result(s)
-
1,526.
Fulton v. Creelman - [1931] SCR 221 - 1930-12-15
Supreme Court JudgmentsProperty law
William P. Creelman (Defendant) Respondent. 1930: October 20; 1930: December 15. [...] Ordered upon the presentment of the Grand Jury that the sum of £8 be assessed upon the settlement of Stewiacke for repairing the bridge over the river at William Fulton’s house, and for other necessary repairs of highways where Robert Gamiel, Commissioner, shall find it necessary.
-
1,527.
Ferguson et al. v. MacLean et al. - [1930] SCR 630 - 1930-10-07
Supreme Court JudgmentsCommercial law
By earlier legislation of the province of New Brunswick, set forth at length by the Chief Justice in his judgment, to wit, c. 11, 1 William IV, (1831), c. 18, 2 William IV, (1832), c. 15, 3 William IV, (1833), c. 48, 38 Vic., (1875), and c. 99, 38 Vic., (1875), it was made abundantly clear that the property of St. James [...] controlled without some clear expression or necessary implication.” Reversion is a well known legal expression, and its meaning and the distinction between it and a remainder is clearly pointed out in the passage from Williams on Real Property (14th Ed., p. 255) to which we were referred by the counsel for the defendants. [...] This view has the support of the Court of Appeal in Tillmanns & Co. v. SS. Knutsford Ltd.[21], in which Farwell L.J. said (at p. 403): “Unless you can find a category there is no room for the application of the ejusdem generis doctrine.” To the same effect are the judgments of Vaughan Williams L.J., at page 395, and of
-
1,528.
Reference re legislative powers as to regulation and control of aeronautics in Canada - [1930] SCR 663 - 1930-10-07
Supreme Court JudgmentsConstitutional law
It is now suggested because the power conferred by the Canadian Act, which is not and could not be wider in its terms than that of William IV, applicable to the Judicial Committee, has resulted in asking questions affecting the provinces, or alleged to do so.
-
1,529.
Montgomery et al. v. Rural Municipality of Assiniboia - [1930] SCR 494 - 1930-06-11
Supreme Court JudgmentsMunicipal law
The said drain be cleaned, altered and deepened, in accordance with the recommendations, plans and specifications, of William Fulton, District Engineer, for the Provincial Government, heretofore annexed marked Exhibit A and identified by the signature of the Reeve and Secretary-Treasurer, and that said work be carried out
-
1,530.
Minister of National Revenue v. Saskatchewan Co-operative Wheat Producers Ltd. - [1930] SCR 402 - 1930-04-10
Supreme Court JudgmentsTaxation
See also judgment of Vaughan Williams L.J., in Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States v. Bishop[12].
-
1,531.
Ryan v. Charlesworth - [1930] SCR 427 - 1930-04-10
Supreme Court JudgmentsEstates
The extent to which the doctrine that his debt was extinguished was carried is further illustrated by the cases collected in Williams on Executors, vol. ii, p. 1180, which shew that an executor, having assets sufficient and properly applicable to pay a debt due to him from his testator, could not sue the testator’s heir nor
-
1,532.
Steedman v. Sparks & McKay - [1930] SCR 351 - 1930-02-26
Supreme Court JudgmentsPriorities and hypothecs
William Sparks and William A. McKay, Carrying on Business as Building Contractors Under the Name, Style and Firm of “Sparks & McKay (Plaintiffs) Respondents; [...] William J. Lord, and Others (Defendants). James P. Steedman (Defendant) Appellant; [...] William J. Lord, and Others (Defendants). 1929: November 5; 1930: February 26.
-
1,533.
Boyd v. Wray / O'Connor v. Wray - [1930] SCR 231 - 1930-02-04
Supreme Court JudgmentsMotor vehicles
William Wray (Defendant) Respondent. Dame Gertrude Boyd (Plaintiff) Appellant; [...] William Wray (Defendant) Respondent. 1929: November 20; 1930: February 4.
-
1,534.
Canada Morning News Co. v. Thompson et al. - [1930] SCR 338 - 1930-02-04
Supreme Court JudgmentsLease
It was so held upon the express ground that " Rennie (the assignee) only stands in the shoes of Williams " (the lessor); [...] as the defendant was not competent to impeach the title of Williams, neither is he competent to impeach that of Rennie.
-
1,535.
Knight Sugar Co. v. Webster - [1930] SCR 518 - 1930-02-04
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
William B. Webster (Defendant) Respondent 1929: October 2; 1930: February 4.
-
1,536.
Lefebvre v. Major - [1930] SCR 252 - 1930-02-04
Supreme Court JudgmentsEstates
Henri Major and William Major, Representing Themselves and All Other Nephews and Nieces of said Deceased, and Marie Felicite Lefebvre (Defendants) Respondents.
-
1,537.
Robert Crean & Co. v. Dobbs & Co. - [1930] SCR 307 - 1930-02-04
Supreme Court JudgmentsIntellectual property
On this ground alone the registration of the respondent’s mark should be refused, for, as Vaughan-Williams L.J., said in Bowden Wire, Limited v. Bowden Brake Co., Limited[9]:
-
1,538.
Royal Trust Co. v. Kennedy - [1930] SCR 602 - 1930-02-04
Supreme Court JudgmentsSale
Q. As to the suggestion of his Lordship, if the Estate Stephens were now to pay fifty odd thousand dollars to the Port Arthur and Fort William Mortgage Company, what chance would they have of getting title to that property? [...] of the Port Arthur and Fort William Mortgage Company Ltd., for the balance of purchase money and interest, amounting as shewn by his particulars, to $48,680, alleging that Hogarth was trustee for the Carrick Company, and, being indebted in a large amount to the Port Arthur and Fort William Mortgage Company Limited, sold [...] The plaintiff put in evidence at the trial a deed, dated 22nd April, 1926, from J. J. Carrick Company Limited to the Port Arthur and Fort William Mortgage Company Limited
-
1,539.
In re Order No. 448 of Board of Railway Commissioners, Regarding Railway Freight Rates in Canada - [1930] SCR 288 - 1929-10-07
Supreme Court JudgmentsAppeal
to fix and determine just and reasonable rates shall not be limited or in any manner affected by the provisions of any Act of the Parliament of Canada, or by any agreement made or entered into pursuant thereto, save and except as to rates on grain and flour from points west of Fort William to Fort William and Port Arthur. [...] (2) The Crow’s Nest rate from Calgary to Fort William. The application was opposed by (inter alia) the city of Quebec, the Quebec Harbour Commissioners, the province of Nova Scotia, the city of Halifax and the Halifax Harbour Commissioners. [...] to fix and determine just and reasonable rates shall not be limited or in any manner affected by the provisions of any Act of the Parliament of Canada, or by any agreement made or entered into pursuant thereto, save and except as to rates on grain and flour from points west of Fort William to Fort William and Port Arthur.
-
1,540.
Scottish Metropolitan Assur. Co. Ltd v. Canada Steamship Lines, Ltd. - [1930] SCR 262 - 1929-09-26
Supreme Court JudgmentsTransportation
William Harrison, a marine surveyor, condemned the arrangement of the turnbuckle and quadrant on the Hamilton.
-
1,541.
Keay v. Alberta Co-operative Wheat Producers Ltd. - [1929] SCR 616 - 1929-06-13
Supreme Court JudgmentsArbitration
Harold William Keay (Plaintiff) Appellant; and Alberta Co-Operative Wheat Producers, Ltd., and Alberta Pool Elevators, Ltd. (Defendants) Respondents
-
1,542.
Thompson v. Fraser Companies Ltd. - [1930] SCR 109 - 1929-06-13
Supreme Court JudgmentsProperty law
By Crown grant, in 1786, known as the “Prince William grant,” certain lots were granted in York County, New Brunswick, according to a plan. [...] It is necessary to look at the earlier instrument, known as the Prince William grant. [...] in the Prince William grant went back very much farther than 92 chains from the river; that the real issue was the establishing of the rear line; and that, if the defendant were right in going back to the extension of the “old road running through Prince William in the Prince William grant,” there had been no trespass.
-
1,543.
Trusts & Guarantee Co. v. Buxton - [1929] SCR 529 - 1929-06-13
Supreme Court JudgmentsAction
William Buxton (Defendant) Respondent 1929: May 1; 1929: June 13. Present:—Duff, Newcombe, Rinfret, Lamont and Smith JJ. [...] 4. A period of over six years has elapsed since the date of registration of said transfer and since the date of any payment on account or of any written acknowledgment of the said liability by the said Defendant, William Buxton. [...] Was the said liability of the Defendant, William Buxton, statute barred at the time of the commencement of this action, i.e., the 31st day of January, 1928?
-
1,544.
Brighouse v. Morton - [1929] SCR 512 - 1929-04-30
Supreme Court JudgmentsTrust
There are payments amounting to $4,000, which the defendant charges as paid to his brother William A. Wilkinson, deceased, for the latter's wages for work done on the farm of Sam Brighouse, during the period from 1896 to 1913. [...] It is, however, sufficiently plain that, if the $4,000, represented by the payments now in controversy, be regarded as part of the proceeds to William A. Wilkinson of the Gulf lots, he has been, to that extent, paid twice, an event which is very unlikely to happen by the payer's consent. [...] There remains the contention that William A. Wilkinson, being nephew of Sam Brighouse, and living on his farm, had no enforceable claim against his uncle for wages by reason of a presumed or implied agreement.
-
1,545.
Newport Industrial Development Co. v. Heughan - [1929] SCR 491 - 1929-04-30
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
The explanation is found in a letter written on the same day by Percy H. Short to his Aunt Susie, the defendant, and Uncle William Heughan, her husband, jointly, who reside and carry on a dry goods business at London, Ontario. [...] The Everybody’s Chewing Gum Corporation, 342 Madison Ave., New York, have leased a plant in this city, formerly occupied by the William Wrigley Co., for which they are paying $10,000 a year rental from February 10, 1926.
-
1,546.
Baldwin v. Mooney / In re estate of Peter Donald, Deceased - [1929] SCR 306 - 1929-03-20
Supreme Court JudgmentsEstates
William T. Mooney and Others (Defendants) Respondents, 1929: February 7; 1929: March 20.
-
1,547.
Western Racing Association v. Woollatt and Wilson - [1929] SCR 483 - 1929-03-20
Supreme Court JudgmentsCommercial law
William R. Woollatt (Defendant) Respondent. and Bradley Wilson Plaintiff. [...] William R. Woollatt (Plaintiff) Respondent. 1929: March 13, 14, 20.
-
1,548.
Reference re Waters and Water-Powers - [1929] SCR 200 - 1929-02-05
Supreme Court JudgmentsConstitutional law
Solicitor for the Attorney General of British Columbia: William D. Carter.
-
1,549.
Ship "Robert J. Paisley" v. Canada Steamship Lines Ltd. / Ship "Robert J. Paisley" v. James Richardson & Sons Ltd. - [1929] SCR 359 - 1929-02-05
Supreme Court JudgmentsTransportation
It would appear that her owners had entrusted the management of the vessel to the Cleveland Cliffs Iron Company, of Cleveland, Ohio, of which Albert E. R. Schneider was the general manager, and that, on 6th November, 1926, William Richards, the superintendent of the Great Lakes Elevator Co., Ltd., which has a grain elevator
-
1,550.
Valois v. de Boucherville - [1929] SCR 234 - 1929-02-05
Supreme Court JudgmentsEstates
1. William Russell Ross, un cousin, qui allégua qu’il était parent et pauvre et réclama sa part en vertu du testament; [...] Il considère que celle de William Russell Ross, qui réclame une part du legs comme étant l’un des “poor relations” ne peut être accueillie. [...] Mais le juge en chef explique que William Russell Ross ne tombe pas dans la catégorie des “relations” et n’est pas un bénéficiaire en vertu du testament.