Advanced Search
- All Databases (2,511)
- Decisions (1,094)
- Resources (1,417)
1,094 result(s)
-
976.
MacLean v. Henning - (1903) 33 SCR 305 - 1903-04-20
Supreme Court JudgmentsEstates
H.J. Scott K.C. and O’Brien K.C. for the respondents (plaintiffs) cited Wing v. Angrave[5]; Van Grutten v. Foxwell[6]. [...] A counter suggestion made by Mr. Scott, as to testator’s failure expressly to provide for the contingency of his survivorship, suggests itself as most reasonable. [...] The will carried out their mutual intention, and the omission on Mr. Henning’s part during the fortnight intervening between his wife’s death and his own to make another will or other disposition of the property than the law, unaided, did, does not to my mind weaken the force of Mr. Scott’s contention that the language of
-
977.
McKelvey v. Le Roi Mining Co. - (1902) 32 SCR 664 - 1902-11-17
Supreme Court JudgmentsAction
Gray v. Richford (2 Can. S. C. R. 431); and Scott v. Phoenix Assurance Company (Stu. K. B. 354), followed. [...] See also, in the Privy Council, the case of Scott v. The Phoenix Assurance Company[5].
-
978.
Oppenheimer v. Brackman & Ker Milling Co. - (1902) 32 SCR 699 - 1902-11-17
Supreme Court JudgmentsAppeal
As there is no proof that the conditions precedent to an action for damages had been complied with and as the time for delivery, six months at least, had not expired the respondents had no right to counterclaim ; their demand for damages was premature; Marshall v. Jamieson[9] ; Dalrymple v. Scott[10] ; Morton v. Lamb[11] ;
-
979.
Hanson et al. v. Village of Grand'mère - (1902) 33 SCR 50 - 1902-10-07
Supreme Court JudgmentsMunicipal law
See also Stokes v. County of Scott ([19]). But is the language of section 27 of the Quebec statute really ambiguous ?
-
980.
Clergue v. Murray - (1902) 32 SCR 450 - 1902-05-27
Supreme Court JudgmentsSale
Solicitors for the respondents: Scott & Scott. [1] L.R. 5 H.L. 395.
-
981.
Cornwall v. Halifax Banking Co. - (1902) 32 SCR 442 - 1902-05-27
Supreme Court JudgmentsInsurance
Hugh Scott, the chief agent for Canada of the insurance company, stated as follows in his evidence:— [...] And I thoroughly concur with Mr. Justice Barker that, the company having paid the sum of $1,000 as a compromise to the administratrix of the estate in an action brought by her to recover the money on the policy, the evidence of Mr. Scott as to the general practice of the insurance company in paying the beneficiary only, in
-
982.
Brophy v. North American Life Assurance Co. - (1902) 32 SCR 261 - 1902-05-06
Supreme Court JudgmentsInsurance
See also Lowry v. Bourdieu[21]; Palyart v. Leckie[22]; Paterson v. Powell[23]; Sykes v. Beadon[24]; Begbie v. The Phosphate Sewage Co.[25]; Scott v. Brown[26].
-
983.
Taylor v. Robertson - (1901) 31 SCR 615 - 1901-11-16
Supreme Court JudgmentsProfessional law
Walter Scott Robertson (Plaintiff) Respondent. 1901: October 21; 1901: November 16.
-
984.
Consumers Cordage Co. v. Connolly - (1901) 31 SCR 244 - 1901-03-28
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
Art. 3 C. P. Q. In taking this course we followed quite a respectable precedent in Scott v. [...] I have been able to collect from the law reports two cases in point, Scott v. Brown, ([2]) decided in 1892 by the English Court of Appeal, and Fabacher v. Bryant, ([3]) which was
-
985.
Migner v. Goulet - (1900) 31 SCR 26 - 1900-11-12
Supreme Court JudgmentsCivil law
Mc-Kibbin v. McCone ([3]); Wilson v. Strugnell ([4]); Her-man v. Jeucner ([5]); Munt v. Stokes ([6]); Collins v. Blantern ([7]), per Wilmot L. C. J. at page 360; Scott v. Brown ([8]); Taylor v. Bowers ([9]); Goodall v. Lowndes ([10]).
-
986.
Sutherland-Innes Co. v. Romney (Township) - (1900) 30 SCR 495 - 1900-10-04
Supreme Court JudgmentsMunicipal law
As to the powers of the municipality under sec. 75 of 57 Vict. ch. 56, see In re Stonehouse and Plympton[5], and as to “injuring liability”, Scott v. Town of Peterborough[6].
-
987.
Brigham v. Banque Jacques-Cartier - (1900) 30 SCR 429 - 1900-06-12
Supreme Court JudgmentsBankruptcy and insolvency
Cokshott v Bennett ([25]) Jackson v. Lomas ([26]); Eastabrook v. Scott ([27]); Jackman v. Mitchell ([28]); Mare v. Sandford ([29]).
-
988.
The Queen v. Yule et al. - (1899) 30 SCR 24 - 1899-10-24
Supreme Court JudgmentsConstitutional law
Viney v. Bignold[6]; Babbage v. Coulburn[7], (affirmed on appeal); Russell on Awards, (7 ed.) 60 to 63; Elliott v. Royal Exchange Assurance Co.[8]; Scott v. Corporation of Liverpool[9]; Fox v. The Railroad[10]; Scott v. Avery[11]; Caledonian Insurance Co. v. Gilmour[12] at page 90, per Herschell L. C., and again at page 95,
-
989.
The Queen v. S.S. "Troop" - (1899) 29 SCR 662 - 1899-10-03
Supreme Court JudgmentsAppeal
We refer also to Hespeler v. Shaw[12]; In re Trepanier[13]; The Queen v. Ambrose and Winslow[14]; The Queen v. Coulson[15]; The Queen v. Scott[16]; and Royal Insurance Co. v. Duffus[17].
-
990.
Consolidated Plate Glass Co. of Canada v. Caston - (1899) 29 SCR 624 - 1899-06-06
Supreme Court JudgmentsLabour law
On the day in question the defendant had procured a horse, waggon and driver from The Cobban Company, under the above arrangement, and had requested the driver to deliver some glass at the office of Scott & Walmsley on the west side of Church Street, in the said city. [...] and accordingly the defendant’s foreman asked the driver to take him to the shop of one Phillips, on Church Street, above King Street, where he could procure a ladder and place it on said waggon and have it delivered at said office of Scott & Walmsley, and it was whilst going for such ladder that the accident occurred.
-
991.
Hyde v. Lindsay - (1899) 29 SCR 595 - 1899-06-05
Supreme Court JudgmentsEstates
We are therefore of opinion that the appeal should be allowed with costs before all the courts and that this action be referred to William L. Scott, Esquire, one of the masters of the High Court of Justice of Ontario, at Ottawa, to take an account of the amount reasonably and properly paid or incurred by appellant as such
-
992.
Zwicker v. Feindel - (1899) 29 SCR 516 - 1899-06-05
Supreme Court JudgmentsSale
[8] 4 M. & G. 209; 4 Scott (N. R.) 638. [9] 2 Ex. 654. [10] 2 DeG. M. & G. 339.
-
993.
Zwicker v. Zwicker - (1899) 29 SCR 527 - 1899-06-05
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
The following cases may be selected from a greater number as controverting any such proposition: Doe d. Garnons v. Knight[18]; Exton v. Scott[19]; Fletcher v. Fletcher[20]; Xenos v. Wickham[21]; Hall v. Palmer[22]; Moore v. Hazelton[23].
-
994.
Collins Bay Rafting & Forwarding Co. v. Kaine - (1898) 29 SCR 247 - 1898-12-14
Supreme Court JudgmentsLease
On the ship coming into port she was surveyed by Scott and Steele and, whatever Scott might say in 1812, it is clear that he and Steele, applying particular assertions to particular facts, upon this survey, stated that part of the timbers were decayed and that the iron work, in general, was very much decayed and wrought [...] [27] 5 scott 25; 3 Bing. N.C. 892. [28] 2 H. &N. 277. [29] 4 Dow 269.
-
995.
Roberts v. Hawkins - (1898) 29 SCR 218 - 1898-12-14
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
and renders them liable; Ross v. Langlois ([12]); Corner v. Byrd ([13]); Evans v. Monette ([14]); Dupont v. Quebec Steamship Co. ([15]) Great Western Railway Co. of Canada v. Braid ([16]); Scott v. The London and St. Katharine Docks Co. ([17]); Smith v. Baker & Sons ([18]); Meux v. Great Eastern Railway Co. ([19]).
-
996.
Guerin v. The Manchester Fire Assurance Co. - (1898) 29 SCR 139 - 1898-11-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsInsurance
We rely upon Art. 2478 C.C.; Accident Ins. Co. of North America v. Young ([19]); Logan v. Commercial Union Ass. Co. ([20]); Western Assurance Co. v. Doull ([21]); Scott v. Phoǽix Ins. Co. ([22]); Racine v. Equitable Ins. Co. of London ([23]); Simpson v. Caledonian ins. [...] The law of England provides that any agreement renouncing the jurisdiction of legally established courses of justice is null but never the less in the case of Scott v. Avery ([35]), the House of Lords determined that a clause of this nature and almost in the same words as that before us making an award a condition [...] In England, Scott v. Avery ([41]); Viney v. Bignold ([42]); and cases cited in Anchor Marine Ins. Co. v. Corbett ([43]).
-
997.
Makins v. Piggott & Inglis - (1898) 29 SCR 188 - 1898-11-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
Co.[1]; Williams v. Eady[2]; Scott v. London and St. Katherine Docks Co.[3] at page 601; Broom’s Legal Maxims 298; Snyder v. Wheeling Electrical Company[4]; Beven on Negligence, 561; Pollock on Texts, (5 ed.) pp. 21-41; Clark v. Chambers[5]; Consolidated Traction Co. v. Scott[6]; Jewson v. Gatti[7]; Dixon v. Bell[8]
-
998.
The Queen v. Woodburn - (1898) 29 SCR 112 - 1898-11-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
Glengarry Election Case[10]; Re Oliver & Scott's Arbitration[11]. Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick Q.C. (Solicitor General of Canada), and Newcombe Q.C (Deputy of the Minister of Justice), contra.
-
999.
Boultbee v. Gzowski - (1898) 29 SCR 54 - 1898-10-13
Supreme Court JudgmentsAgency
H.J. Scott Q.C. for the appellant. The contract in this case may be summarized as being an offer by one party of a price for the stock and an acceptance by the other.
-
1,000.
The North-West Electric C. v. Walsh - (1898) 29 SCR 33 - 1898-10-13
Supreme Court JudgmentsCommercial law
A misapprehension of the law by the Legislature does not make that the law which it has erroneously, assumed the law to be: Earl of Shrewsbury v. Scott (3) at page 53. [...] The Earl of Shrewsbury v. Scott ([42]). In the second place the by-laws and resolutions are bad because, assuming the proviso to authorize the issue of stock below par, the issue in the present case was not confirmed at any annual or special meeting of the company.