Advanced Search
- All Databases (2,511)
- Decisions (1,094)
- Resources (1,417)
1,094 result(s)
-
851.
C. & E. Townsites Ltd. v. Wetaskiwin (City) - (1919) 59 SCR 578 - 1919-12-22
Supreme Court JudgmentsTaxation
IDINGTON J. (dissenting).—The respondent got judgment at the trial before Mr. Justice Scott for taxes alleged to be due by appellant by virtue of assessments made for the years 1916 and 1917 and that has been maintained by the Appellate Division for Alberta from which this appeal is made. [...] As put by Mr. Justice Scott:— An inspection of the rolls shews that the practice followed by the assessor was that where a number of lots of the defendant in the same locality were entered the name "Townsite Trustees" would be entered in the owner column opposite the first one only.
-
852.
Rawlings and Ball v. Galibert - (1919) 59 SCR 611 - 1919-12-22
Supreme Court JudgmentsGuarantee and suretyship
Ibid, note (e): Ville de Maisonneuve v. Chartier[9]; Hamilton v. Perry[10]; Hébert v. Poirier[11]; Banque d'Hochelaga v. Macduff[12]; Scott v. Turnbull[13].
-
853.
Grant v. Scott - (1919) 59 SCR 227 - 1919-11-10
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
Grant v. Scott, , (1919) 59 SCR 227 Supreme Court of Canada Grant v. Scott, (1919) 59 S.C.R. 227 [...] Leonard Scott (Plaintiff). Respondent. 1919: November 6; 1919: November 10. [...] The fact that the payee, Scott, when he placed the note in the hands of the Royal Bank for collection, also indorsed the note, and he did so under the signature of the appellant, does not take the case out of the operation of section 131, and I cannot follow the argument of the appellant when he says that the respondent was
-
854.
McBratney v. McBratney - (1919) 59 SCR 550 - 1919-11-10
Supreme Court JudgmentsFamily law
The second of these views was adopted by the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Scott, the first prevailing with Mr. Justice Stuart who presided at the hearing of the application and Mr. Justice McCarthy and Mr. Justice Simmons in the Appellate Division. [...] On the whole I think the weight of argument favours the view of the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Scott.
-
855.
Canadian Pacific Rway. Co., v. Albin Idington J - (1919) 59 SCR 151 - 1919-10-20
Supreme Court JudgmentsTransportation
H.J. Scott K.C. for the respondent. The English cases respecting compensation for loss of business are not applicable in Canada owing to the difference between our “Railway Act” and the Acts on which those decisions were founded.
-
856.
The Town of Cobalt v. The Temiskaming Telephone Company - (1919) 59 SCR 62 - 1919-06-02
Supreme Court JudgmentsMunicipal law
H.J. Scott K.C. for the respondent. IDINGTON J.—The question raised herein is whether or not respondent, which is a telephone company incorporated under and by virtue of the Ontario “Companies Act,” has, under the circumstances I am about to refer to, the right to maintain on the public highways of appellant, which is a
-
857.
Union Bank of Canada v. Phillips and Boulter Waugh Ltd. - (1919) 58 SCR 385 - 1919-03-17
Supreme Court JudgmentsStatutes
In the course of events attendant upon the said several assignments, one Scott Barlow, who had become one of the said several assignees, as trustee for respondent company, registered a caveat on the 5th of June, 1913. [...] obtained from Phillips a mortgage upon the said lands and having had, when doing so, knowledge of the said caveat filed by Scott Barlow, the appellant is held by the court below to have committed a fraud and thereby is deprived of its rights as such mortgagee. [...] In May, 1913, Phillips, being indebted to Boulter Waugh and Company, Limited (now represented by the respondent), assigned his interest in the agreement for sale to the said company, which immediately transferred its interest to its credit manager, Mr. Scott Barlow, in trust for the company.
-
858.
Canadian Pacific Ry. Co. v. Department of Public Works of Ontario - (1919) 58 SCR 189 - 1919-02-04
Supreme Court JudgmentsStatutes
In this order the Chief Commissioner, Sir Henry L. Drayton K.C. and the Assistant Commissioner, Mr. D'Arcy Scott, concurred, while Mr. Commissioner S. J. McLean dissented.
-
859.
Lecomte v. O'Grady - (1918) 57 SCR 563 - 1918-12-09
Supreme Court JudgmentsAppeal
W. L. Scott for the motion referred to St. John Lumber Co. v. Roy[3]; Jones v. Tucker[4].
-
860.
Merchants Bank of Canada v. Hagman - (1918) 59 SCR 662 - 1918-10-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsTaxation
W. L. Scott for the respondent. [1] 13 Alfa. L.R. 293; [1918] 2 W.W.R. 377.
-
861.
Stowe v. The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Co. - (1918) 59 SCR 665 - 1918-10-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsTransportation
APPEAL from the judgment of the Supreme Court of Alberta, Appellate Division[1], reversing the judgment of Scott J. at the trial and dismissing the appellant's (plaintiff's) action.
-
862.
Cameron v. Church of Christ, Scientist - (1918) 57 SCR 298 - 1918-10-08
Supreme Court JudgmentsEstates
Solicitors for the respondents, executors: Stewart & Scott. [1] 40 Ont. L.R. 567 sub nom.
-
863.
Grand Trunk Pacific Coast Steamship Co. v. Victoria-Vancouver Stevedoring Co. - (1918) 57 SCR 124 - 1918-06-25
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
Held, that Scott, at the time he was injured, was performing labour embraced in the agreement. [...] It was also alleged that the stevedoring agreement had been terminated before Scott was injured. [...] The agreement must therefore be deemed to have been in force when Scott was injured.
-
864.
National Benefit Life and Property Assurance Co. v. McCoy - (1918) 57 SCR 29 - 1918-06-10
Supreme Court JudgmentsInsurance
W. L. Scott for the appellant. A. E. Honeywell, for the respondent. [...] The case of Western Assurance Company v. Doull[1], was strongly relied upon by Mr. Scott for the company as a binding authority in this case. [...] Mr. Scott strenuously contended that under the condition where subsequent insurance was effected
-
865.
Komnick System Sandstone Brick Machinery Co. v. B.C. Pressed Brick Co - (1918) 56 SCR 539 - 1918-05-14
Supreme Court JudgmentsStatutes
H. J. Scott, K.C. for the appellant. Chrysler K.C. for the respondent.
-
866.
Union Natural Gas Co. v. Chatham Gas Co. - (1918) 56 SCR 253 - 1918-03-25
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
Seaward v. Paterson[24], at pages 554 et seq.; Scott v. Scott[25], at page 457.
-
867.
Acton Tanning Co. v. Toronto Suburban Rway. Co. - (1918) 56 SCR 196 - 1918-03-05
Supreme Court JudgmentsTransportation
H.J. Scott K.C. for the appellants. The president had no authority to bind the company by the agreement.
-
868.
Calgary (City) v. Canadian Western Natural Gas Co. - (1917) 56 SCR 117 - 1917-11-28
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
Two of the learned judges of the Appellate Division, Stuart and Scott JJ., based their judgment that the Dingman franchise must be held to extend to the extensions of the city's area solely upon the construction placed by them upon an agreement made in January, 1911, between the city and the Calgary Natural Gas Co.,
-
869.
Geall v. Dominion Creosoting Co. / Salter v. Dominion Creosoting Co. - (1917) 55 SCR 587 - 1917-10-15
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
In Latham v. Johnson[17], Hamilton L.J. states a rule which he says is as old as Scott v. Shepherd[18], namely, that a person who, in neglect of ordinary care, places or leaves his property in a condition which may be dangerous to another may be answerable for the resulting injury, even though but for the intervening act of
-
870.
Bulletin Co. v Sheppard - (1917) 55 SCR 454 - 1917-06-22
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
Mr. Justice Scott reports that the general increase of crime, which is the usual accompaniment of such a condition, is not traceable till about early February and so continued until the investigation. [...] The most pitiable thing in this case is the respondent's story of all he ever did to put a stop to this carnival of vice that Mr. Justice Scott's report sets forth as existent. [...] I put aside the alleged libels on the plaintiff in connection with matters dealt with by the report made by Mr. Justice Scott, who had held a judicial investigation into the manner in which the "social evil" had been dealt with by the city council and the police of Edmonton.
-
871.
Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Co. v. Calgary (City) - (1917) 55 SCR 103 - 1917-06-22
Supreme Court JudgmentsMunicipal law
Mr. Justice Scott in In re Canadian Pacific Railway Co. and Town of Macleod[5], where, at p. 197, he says:—
-
872.
Town of Oakville v. Cranston - (1917) 55 SCR 630 - 1917-06-22
Supreme Court JudgmentsMunicipal law
H.J. Scott K.C. and W.A. Chisholm for the appellant. James Lawson for the respondent.
-
873.
Franco-Canadian Mortgage Co. v. Greig - (1917) 55 SCR 395 - 1917-02-19
Supreme Court JudgmentsAgency
DUFF J.—I concur in the opinion upon which Mr. Justice Scott and Mr. Justice Stuart proceeded, that if Cassels professing to act on behalf of the respondents (plaintiffs) did enter into an agreement with the appellants (defendants) which both parties intended to be and which in fact was an agreement to purchase the land in
-
874.
Hamilton v. The King - (1917) 54 SCR 331 - 1917-02-06
Supreme Court JudgmentsProperty law
N.S. 189, at p. 193; 2 Scott 276. [15] 9 Rep. 95a. 14 2 Bing. N.S. 189, at p. 193; 2 Scott 276.
-
875.
Glen Falls Insurance Company v. Adams - (1916) 54 SCR 88 - 1916-12-11
Supreme Court JudgmentsAppeal
W.L. Scott for the motion referred to Bennett v. Havelock Electric Light Co.[1]; Stephens v. Gerth[2]; Bain v. Anderson & Co.[3] [...] Leighton McCarthy K.C. contra cited Robinson, Little & Co. v. Scott & Son.[4]