Advanced Search
- All Databases (1,254)
- Decisions (530)
- Resources (724)
530 result(s)
-
351.
Debortoli v. The King - [1926] SCR 492 - 1926-06-24
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
Held, that the judgment of the Court of Appeal did not conflict with the judgment in the Allen Case, and the application was dismissed. [...] In Allen v. The King[3] a witness had testified at the preliminary investigation who was not produced at the trial, and the requirements for the admission of his deposition under s. 999 of the Criminal Code were not established. [...] The question I think is whether that court should have held otherwise upon the proper interpretation and application of the decision in Allen v. The King[4].
-
352.
Gouin v. The King - [1926] SCR 539 - 1926-06-14
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
But, as was said by Sir Charles Fitzpatrick C.J. in Allen v. The King[11]: [...] In the Allen’s Case11, all the judges below had found that there was ample evidence that the prisoner killed Captain Elliston and, as would appear from the report, all the judges of this court concurred in that opinion.
-
353.
Vancouver Milling and Grain Co. v. C.C. Ranch Co. - [1924] SCR 671 - 1924-11-19
Supreme Court JudgmentsSale
The case at bar is distinguishable from Blackburn Bobbin Co. v. T. W. Allen & Sons Ltd.[15], relied on by Mr. Bennett.
-
354.
Livesley v. Horst Co. - [1924] SCR 605 - 1924-11-11
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
Cooper v. Earl of Waldegrave[7]; Allen v. Kemble[8]; Gibbs v. Fremont[9]; In re Commercial Bank of South Australia[10]; The Queen v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co.[11]; Fergusson v. Fyffe[12].
-
355.
The Security Export Co. v. Hetherington - [1923] SCR 539 - 1923-12-31
Supreme Court JudgmentsPrerogative writs
This test was adopted by Allen C.J. in The Queen v. Simpson[5] at page 474.
-
356.
Henderson v. Fraser - [1923] SCR 23 - 1922-11-27
Supreme Court JudgmentsEstates
In re A. F. Bryan[1] ; Russel v. Dickson[2] ; Hooley v. Hatton[3] ; Moggridge v. Thackwell[4] ; Allen v. Callow[5] ; Barclay v. Wainwright[6] ; Bell v. Park[7].
-
357.
Guardian Realty Co. v. John Stark & Co. - (1922) 64 SCR 207 - 1922-06-17
Supreme Court JudgmentsLease
The only authority to the contrary which is cited is Lewis v. Stephenson[9].’ But that is only a dictum by a single judge which is dissented from in Allen v. Murphy[10]. [...] To the same effect is a decision of the Irish Court of Appeal in Allen v. Murphy[18], and a long series of American decisions. [...] But this dictum has been dissented from in Allen v. Murphy[39]. In view of those authorities, I am of opinion that John Stark & Company properly exercised their option.
-
358.
Allen v. Hay - (1922) 64 SCR 76 - 1922-05-31
Supreme Court JudgmentsBills of exchange
Allen v. Hay, (1922) 64 SCR 76 Supreme Court of Canada Allen v. Hay, 64 S.C.R. 76 [...] N. Allen (Defendant) Appellant; and C. P. Hay (Plaintiff) Respondent. [...] He found among the assets Allen's promissory note; and as Mr. Allen is now living in British Columbia he is sued before the courts of this province by the bank examiner for the payment of this note.
-
359.
Page v. Campbell - (1921) 61 SCR 633 - 1921-03-11
Supreme Court JudgmentsAction
The decision in the case of London County Council v. Allen[1], seems conclusively to restrict the right recognized in Tulk v. Moxhay[2], and asserted by appellant herein to enforce such a covenant to one who owns part of the land in question. [...] This is a case in which we should refuse to apply the principles laid down in the cases of Formby v. Barker[6]; London County Council v. Allen[7]; Milbourn v. Lyons[8], relied upon by the respondent, because in those cases the plaintiff had no interest in any land situate near the one in dispute. [...] The answer is that having disposed of all land in the subdivision, he is without interest to enforce the covenant, and that therefore the doctrine of Tulk v. Moxhay10, does not apply; London County Council v. Allen[11]; Milbourn v. Lyons[12].
-
360.
Canadian Pacific Rway. Co., v. Albin Idington J - (1919) 59 SCR 151 - 1919-10-20
Supreme Court JudgmentsTransportation
The learned authors of Browne & Allen on Compensation (2 ed., p. 101) suggest that [...] The English authorities are collected in Browne and Allen on Compensation (2 ed.) ubi sup. and at p. 116; 6 Halsbury Laws of England, No. 36 and Nos. 49 and 53; and Cripps on Compensation (5 ed.), pp. 107-8 and 146.
-
361.
Clarkson v. Dominion Bank - (1919) 58 SCR 448 - 1919-03-03
Supreme Court JudgmentsFinancial institutions
Chetwynd v. Allen[21], at page 358, per Romer J. [Page 470] Substitution, like merger, is largely a question of intention.
-
362.
Larson v. Boyd - (1919) 58 SCR 275 - 1919-03-03
Supreme Court JudgmentsCivil procedure
Allen v. The King[6]; Loughead v. Collingwood & Co.[7]; Hyndman v. Stephens[8].
-
363.
Duchaine v. Matamajaw Salmon Club - (1919) 58 SCR 223 - 1919-02-04
Supreme Court JudgmentsFishery
[14] 12 Allen (Mass.) 459, at p. 461. [15] 5 Bing. N.C. 694.
-
364.
Cameron v. Church of Christ, Scientist - (1918) 57 SCR 298 - 1918-10-08
Supreme Court JudgmentsEstates
The uplifting of humanity is a benevolent but not a charitable purpose; James v. Allen[11].
-
365.
Brunet v. The King - (1918) 57 SCR 83 - 1918-06-25
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
Allen C.J., with whom Weldon and Fraser JJ. concurred, said at 164: I think the word "absence" in this section does not necessarily mean actual absence from the place or room where the trial is held; but would apply to a case where the justices had, for some cause, become incapable of sitting and taking part in the
-
366.
The King v. Hearn - (1917) 55 SCR 562 - 1917-06-22
Supreme Court JudgmentsExpropriation
I refer to that called "The Molson Macpherson sale," that known as "The Allen sale," and that belonging to the Belanger estate. [...] The first and lastly named seem directly in point though some objections are taken as to the Allen sale, which renders it of less value, yet of very great value, if correctly understood.
-
367.
Hochberger v. Rittenberg - (1916) 54 SCR 480 - 1916-12-30
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
The present case is clearly distinguishable from Langley v. Van Allen[16], relied on by the appellant.
-
368.
Western Canada Power Co. v. Bergklint - (1916) 54 SCR 285 - 1916-12-30
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
The preparation of the hill from time to time was not a "system" defects in which would entail liability: Allen v. New Gas Co.[2].
-
369.
Kelly v. The King - (1916) 54 SCR 220 - 1916-11-07
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
The view that, by holding that there was ample evidence of some offence and, consequently, no substantial wrong or miscarriage occurred cannot prevail; the court cannot be the judge of what may have influenced the minds of the jury where evidence of an important character was improperly admitted: Allen v. The King[20]; Bray
-
370.
Carruthers & Co. v. Schmidt - (1916) 54 SCR 131 - 1916-10-24
Supreme Court JudgmentsSecurities
Holden v. Starks[13]; Bibb v. Allen[14]; Wilson v. Mason[15]; Amer. & Eng. Encycl. of Law (2ed.), p. 984.
-
371.
Veronneau v. The King - (1916) 54 SCR 7 - 1916-10-10
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
Rex v. Willmont[19] ; Allen, v. The King[20]. To hold, as was apparently held by one learned judge in the Hayes Case[21], at page 118, that, because the appellant was subsequently convicted by a petit jury at the trial, to which he was compelled to proceed upon the rejection of his motion to quash, it cannot be said that he
-
372.
Ingersoll Telephone Co. v. Bell Telephone Co. of Canada - (1916) 53 SCR 583 - 1916-06-24
Supreme Court JudgmentsTransportation
See, too, Brown and Allen on Compensation (2 ed.), p. 97, and authorities cited by both authors.
-
373.
The St. John Lumber Company v. Roy - (1916) 53 SCR 310 - 1916-05-16
Supreme Court JudgmentsAppeal
The Queen v. Allen[27]; to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy; Heydon's Case[28], Peek v. North Staffordshire Railway Co.[29];
-
374.
Singer v. Singer - (1916) 52 SCR 447 - 1916-02-01
Supreme Court JudgmentsEstates
According to many authorities language such as that used by the testator does not create a complete trust in the strict sense; Bond v. Dickinson[11]; Lambe v. Eames10; Mackett v. Mackett[12]; Allen v. Furness[13]; Re Shortreed[14]; Atkinson v. Atkinson[15].
-
375.
Tweedie v. The King - (1915) 52 SCR 197 - 1915-11-02
Supreme Court JudgmentsProperty law
Rogers v. Allen[30]; Attorney-General v. Emerson[31]. The reference in the lease of 1818 to the fact that an adjacent part of the foreshore was then occupied by a boom held by Francis Peabody, Esq., is significant in this connection.