Advanced Search
- All Databases (2,511)
- Decisions (1,094)
- Resources (1,417)
1,094 result(s)
-
776.
Overn v. Strand - [1931] SCR 720 - 1931-10-06
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
[18] (1834) 4 Moore & Scott 552. [19] (1818) 129 E.R. 488. [20] (1875) 3 Indian Appeals 106.
-
777.
May, SS. v. The King - [1931] SCR 374 - 1931-04-28
Supreme Court JudgmentsFishery
In The Eleanor[1], Sir William Scott said: Real and irresistible distress must be at all times a sufficient passport for human beings under any such application of human laws. [...] “Nothing less,” says Sir William Scott, “than an uncontrollable necessity, which admits of no compromise, and cannot be resisted,” will be held a justification of the offence.
-
778.
Ottawa Electric Co. v. Crepin - [1931] SCR 407 - 1931-04-28
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
Held (1) The evidence of the wire being on the sidewalk was sufficient to attribute negligence to defendant, in the absence of any other apparent cause or explanation excluding negligence to the satisfaction of the jury (Scott v. London & St. Katherine Docks Co., 3 H. & C. 596, at 601, cited). [...] In the case of Scott v. London and St. Katherine Docks Co., in the Exchequer Chamber[5], it was said that
-
779.
Queen City, SS. v. The King / Sunrise, SS. v. The King / Tillie M., SS. v. The King - [1931] SCR 387 - 1931-04-28
Supreme Court JudgmentsFishery
In The Eleanor4, Sir William Scott enunciated the principle which, in our opinion, applies to the weaknesses of the vessels as above set out.
-
780.
Canadian Pacific Ry. Co. v. The King - [1930] SCR 574 - 1930-06-11
Supreme Court JudgmentsState
W. N. Tilley K.C., W. L. Scott K.C. and E. P. Flintoft K.C. for the appellant. [...] Solicitors for the appellant: Ewart, Scott, Kelley & Kelley. Solicitor for the respondent: W. P. Jones.
-
781.
Canadian Surety Co. v. The King - [1930] SCR 434 - 1930-04-10
Supreme Court JudgmentsTaxation
W. N. Tilley K.C. and W. L. Scott K.C. for the appellant. N. W. Rowell K.C. and G. Lindsay for the (plaintiff) respondent. [...] Solicitors for the appellant: Ewart, Scott, Kelley & Kelley. Solicitor for the respondent: W. Stuart Edwards.
-
782.
Knight Sugar Co. v. Webster - [1930] SCR 518 - 1930-02-04
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
(Re Scott and Alvarez's Contract (1)). Appeal allowed with costs. [1] (1929) 24 Alta.
-
783.
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
Cuthbert Scott for the Canadian Pacific Ry. Co. Lamont J.—This is an application on behalf of the Canadian National Railways for an order extending the time for applying for leave to appeal, and for leave to appeal to this Court from the Order of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, known as “General Order No.
-
784.
Carter v. Van Camp - [1930] SCR 156 - 1929-10-01
Supreme Court JudgmentsMotor vehicles
against C., who owed a duty to persons situated as was the infant plaintiff to anticipate such incidents as here occurred as the result of the collision (Scott’s Trustees v. Moss. 17 S.C., 32, and other authorities referred to); plaintiffs should have judgment against both A. and C.; it was not a case for a new trial. [...] One of the most striking examples is Scott’s Trustees v. Moss[20], where a person responsible for a balloon ascent was held liable for damage done to a cultivated field into which the balloon descended by the crowd which collected.
-
785.
Taylor v. Taylor - [1930] SCR 26 - 1929-06-13
Supreme Court JudgmentsFamily law
Frank Scott Taylor (Plaintiff) Respondent. 1929 May 15; 1929: June 13.
-
786.
Jack v. Cranston - [1929] SCR 503 - 1929-05-31
Supreme Court JudgmentsAppeal
Solicitors for the appellant: Ewart, Scott, Kelley & Kelley. Solicitor for the respondent: Trevor H. Grout.
-
787.
Gallagher v. Murphy and Gilroy - [1929] SCR 288 - 1929-02-05
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
of negotiation, and that plaintiff could recover against him only if he was a holder in due course) that G.’s. endorsement on the note before T. Co. took it had the effect of an “aval”, and made G. liable to T. Co. and its assignee, the plaintiff—Robinson v. Mann, 31 Can. S.C.R. 484; Grant v. Scott, 59 Can. S.C.R. 227. [...] The principle in Robinson v. Mann[13] was unanimously reasserted in Grant v. Scott, a later decision of this Court[14], where it was referred to in this way by Sir Louis Davies, the then Chief Justice:— [...] It is the addition of the concluding words of s. 131 which distinguishes the Dominion from the corresponding English section and makes clear the intention to introduce into our law the principle of the “aval.” That we understand to have been the view taken in this court both in Robinson v. Mann13 and Grant v. Scott14; and,
-
788.
E. T. Wright, Ltd. v. The Adams & Westlake Co. - [1929] SCR 81 - 1928-12-05
Supreme Court JudgmentsIntellectual property
As to that, Mr. Scott contends that there is no evidence of importation between those dates. [...] Mr. Fetherstonhaugh did not challenge that statement of Mr. Scott, and failed to point out any such evidence. [...] Solicitors for the respondents: Ewart, Scott, Kelley & Kelley. [1] [1928] Ex. C.R. 112.
-
789.
Howson v. Lewis - [1929] SCR 174 - 1928-10-26
Supreme Court JudgmentsSale
Henry Rees and Cuthbert Scott for the appellant. J. M. Stevenson K.C. for the respondent.
-
790.
Colonial Investment & Loan Co. v. Martin - [1928] SCR 440 - 1928-06-12
Supreme Court JudgmentsAction
Scott, John F. MacDonald and the respondent Martin entered into a mortgage agreement with the appellant in consideration of a loan by it to them of $1,000, payable by instalments, with interest at 81⁄2 per cent. per annum. [...] Harry Marsden Paine, merchant; John O. Scott, merchant; John F. MacDonald, merchant; and Harry James Martin, agent, all of Sedley aforesaid, [...] Paine, Scott, MacDonald and the respondent, a personal obligation as principals to pay the money loaned, which is expressly stated to have been loaned to them.
-
791.
The Custodian v. Passavant - [1928] SCR 242 - 1928-04-24
Supreme Court JudgmentsCivil law
transaction where there were not mutual accounts.” Story on Equity, 3rd Ed., pp. 33, 40, 191; Scott v. Surman[7]; and there are many later authorities.
-
792.
Canada & Gulf Terminal Ry. Co. v. Levesque - [1928] SCR 340 - 1928-03-27
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
This seems to be involved in City of Montreal v. Watt & Scott[9]. We may now examine a little more closely from this point of view, the facts with which we have to deal. [...] Watt and Scott[12]. If there had been negligence on the defendant’s part it would have been liable under article 1053, but negligence is excluded by the findings; there was therefore, in that sense, no failure to adopt reasonable means, and I am in a frame of mind to question whether it does not appear to be unreasonable [...] en cuivre qu’il y avait ici, est la seule précaution raisonnable que l’on a suggérée comme pouvant être adoptée pour empêcher l’accident, par application du principe: “unable by reasonable means to prevent the damage complained of” posé par le Conseil Privé dans la cause de City of Montreal v. Watt and Scott Ltd.[13].
-
793.
Rural Municipality of Victory v. Saskatchewan Guarantee & Fidelity Co., Ltd. - [1928] SCR 264 - 1928-03-27
Supreme Court JudgmentsGuarantee and suretyship
As against Inkster’s evidence the jury had the testimony of W. T. Scott of the firm of Griggs & Co., chartered accountant, who made the special audit, and whose testimony was to the effect that Paisley had not accounted for all the moneys coming to his hands in 1921. [...] Notwithstanding that Inkster swore that in making the entries he had written them up as well as he knew how, W. T. Scott, in his evidence, stated that the books had never been properly kept from the first.
-
794.
Winnipeg Electric Co. v. Scott - [1928] SCR 52 - 1927-10-12
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
Winnipeg Electric Co. v. Scott, , [1928] SCR 52 Supreme Court of Canada [...] Winnipeg Electric Co. v. Scott, [1928] S.C.R. 52 Date: 1927-10-12 Winnipeg Electric Company v. Scott
-
795.
Canadian Raybestos Co., Ltd. v. Brake Service Corp., Ltd. - [1928] SCR 61 - 1927-06-17
Supreme Court JudgmentsIntellectual property
W. L. Scott K.C. for the respondent. [1] [1926] Ex. C.R. 187.
-
796.
The Custodian v. Blucher - [1927] SCR 420 - 1927-04-20
Supreme Court JudgmentsAction
See the following cases: Cockerell v. Barber[9]; Scott v. Bevan[10]; Bertram v. Duhamel[11]; Manners v. Pearson[12]; Di Ferdinando v. Simon, Smits & Co. Ltd.[13]; SS. Celia v. SS. Volturno[14]; Société des Hôtels le Touquet Paris-Plage v. Cummings[15]; In re British-American Continental Bank, Lim., Goldzieher and
-
797.
McLaughlin v. Long - [1927] SCR 303 - 1927-02-01
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
R. S. Robertson K.C. and W. R. Scott for the respondent. The judgment of the majority of the court (Anglin C.J.C. and Duff, Mignault and Rinfret JJ.) was delivered by [...] Mr. Scott: I wish it to be distinctly understood and noted that I am objecting to any question of contributory negligence in this case going to the jury. [...] Solicitor for the respondents: W. R. Scott. [1] [1926] 3 D.L.R. 918.
-
798.
Gurdita v. The King - [1927] SCR 80 - 1927-01-18
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
In the judgment of the Appellate Division in the present proceeding Mr. Justice Martin, delivering the opinion of the court, held, on the authority of Regina v. Scott[2] , that it had been sufficiently established that Gurditta had given the evidence on which the perjury charge rests in a judicial proceeding, i.e., upon the
-
799.
Gordon v. Hebblewhite - [1927] SCR 29 - 1927-01-04
Supreme Court JudgmentsPriorities and hypothecs
W. L. Scott K.C. for the respondent. The judgment of the court was delivered by
-
800.
Ontario Jockey Club Ltd. v. McBride - [1927] SCR 84 - 1926-12-15
Supreme Court JudgmentsCommercial law
H.J. Scott K.C. for the respondent. [Page 85] The judgment of the majority of the court (Anglin C.J.C. and Duff, Mignault, Newcombe and Rinfret JJ.) was delivered by