Advanced Search
- All Databases (1,254)
- Decisions (530)
- Resources (724)
530 result(s)
-
401.
British & Foreign Bible Society v. Tupper - (1905) 37 SCR 100 - 1905-12-22
Supreme Court JudgmentsEstates
In Allen v. McPherson[12] all the distinguished jurists who there delivered judgments, but especially Lord Lyndhurst, at page 209, and Lord Campbell, at page 233, expressed themselves in terms which leave no doubt that the ecclesiastical courts formerly could and the Court of Probate can now admit part of an instrument to
-
402.
Grand Trunk Railway Co. of Canada v. Hainer - (1905) 36 SCR 180 - 1905-05-02
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
In Allen v. North Metropolitan Tramways Co.[46], the court was composed of Lord Esher M.R. and Lindley and Bowen L.JJ. It was a case where the accident happened upon a bridge upon which two tramway lines coalesced and the plaintiff when endeavouring to cross the road looked only in one direction and not in the direction [...] [53] 10 Allen (Mass.) 532. [54] 84 Pa. St. 226. [55] 97 Mich. 240, at page 244.
-
403.
Sievert v. Brookfield - (1905) 35 SCR 494 - 1905-01-31
Supreme Court Judgments[59] 10 Allen (Mass.) 368. [60] 10 M. & W. 546. [61] [1891] 1 Q. B. 730.
-
404.
Canada Woollen Mills v. Traplin - (1904) 35 SCR 424 - 1904-12-14
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
The case of Allen v. New Gas Company[17] cited in support of a contrary doctrine is not, I venture to say, authority for that doctrine. [...] In 1876 two other cases came before the courts, the first being Allen v. The New Gas Company[33], and the judgment of the court composed of Bramwell, Amphlett and Huddleston BB., was read by Huddleston B., and he points out at page 254 what is necessary to be proved in order to make out a master liable to common law; he [...] Chief Justice would have held no liability existed at common law, but in the view of the expression of opinion of Huddleston B. in Allen v. The New Gas Co.[65], above cited, to which the attention of the learned judge had not been drawn, I should have doubted whether the plaintiff satisfied the full onus cast upon him.
-
405.
Calloway v. Stobart Sons and Co - (1904) 35 SCR 301 - 1904-12-01
Supreme Court JudgmentsAgency
2 9 Allen, 350. 3 65 N. Y 574. 4 68 p,a. St. 42. 5 7 Times L. R. 132.
-
406.
Spencer v. Alaska Packers Association - (1904) 35 SCR 362 - 1904-11-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsAction
Stephen Allen Spencer (Defendant) Appellant; and The Alaska Packers Association (Plaintiffs) Respondent. [...] Now before discussing the case of Allen v. Flood[5], and what was decided therein, there are two observations of a general character which I wish to make, and one is to repeat what I have very often said before, that every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved, or assumed to be proved, since the
-
407.
Victoria-Montreal Fire Insurance Co. v. Home Insurance Co. Of New York - (1904) 35 SCR 208 - 1904-10-31
Supreme Court JudgmentsInsurance
J. E. Martin K.C. and Howard for the appellants, referred to Prevost v. The Scottish Union and National; Ins. Co. ([1]) and cases there cited; Cornell v. The Liverpool and London Fire and Life Ins. Co. ([2]); Allen v. The Merchants Marine Ins. Co. ([3]); Liverpool and London and Globe Ins. Co. v. The Agricultural Savings
-
408.
Maddison v. Emmerson - (1904) 34 SCR 533 - 1904-04-27
Supreme Court JudgmentsProperty law
Allen J. delivered the judgment of the court After stating the facts of the case, and the plaintiff's contention. that the Crown could not make a grant without office found, he proceeded as follows:
-
409.
Miller v. Robertson - (1904) 35 SCR 80 - 1904-04-27
Supreme Court JudgmentsCourts
[11] 5 Allen (N. B.) 121. [12] 150 U. S. R., 597. [13] 4 Can. S. C. R. 609.
-
410.
Peoples Bank of Halifax v. Estey - (1904) 34 SCR 429 - 1904-03-10
Supreme Court JudgmentsSale
[9] 11 Allen (Mass.) 349. [10] L. R. 10 C. P. 354. [11] 15 East 37.
-
411.
Grand Trunk Rway. Co. v. McKay - (1903) 34 SCR 81 - 1903-12-01
Supreme Court JudgmentsTransportation
I adopt the language of Allen J. in Weber v. New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Co.[8]
-
412.
Manitoba Assurance Co. v. Whitla / Whitla v. Royal Insurance Co. - (1903) 34 SCR 191 - 1903-11-30
Supreme Court JudgmentsInsurance
[12] 4 Allen (Mass.) 217. [13] 6 Cush. (Mass.) 342. [14] 2 Watts & Sargeant (Penn.) 506 at p. 544.
-
413.
Wilson v. Canadian Development Co. - (1903) 33 SCR 432 - 1903-05-18
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
We may be bound by ordinary terms as to carriage in the bill of lading; but we deny that a clause in it can effect an alteration of our rights under the original contract, See Rodoconachi v. Milburn Bros.[4], at page 319; Gledstanes v. Allen,[5], and Wagstaff v. Anderson, [6], per Bramwell LJ., at page 177, and in Sewell v.
-
414.
In re Representation of Certain Provinces in the House of Commons - (1903) 33 SCR 475 - 1903-04-29
Supreme Court JudgmentsConstitutional law
William Pugsley K.C, Attorney General for the Province of New Brunswick, and Geo. W. Allen K.C. [...] Mr. Allen: You must find out what was the meaning of the words at the time the Act was passed. [...] Mr. Allen: Would you re-adjust their representation under section 51?
-
415.
Dempster v. Lewis - (1903) 33 SCR 292 - 1903-04-20
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
Even where an appeal is taken from the concurrent findings of facts by two Courts, whilst the general rule laid down in such cases as for instance, Allen v. The Quebec Warehouse Co.[20]; Hay v. Gordon[21]; McIntyre Bros. v. McGavin[22] cannot be disregarded, yet, it
-
416.
Gosselin v. The King - (1903) 33 SCR 255 - 1903-04-20
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
And, in Barbat v. Allen ([2]), Pollock C. B. says : I must at the same time state that the history of a clause in a statute is certainly no ground for its interpretation in a court of law and I would guard myself against being considered as resorting to any such means.
-
417.
Chaudière Machine & Foundry Co. v. Canada Atlantic Rway. Co. - (1902) 33 SCR 11 - 1902-12-09
Supreme Court JudgmentsMunicipal law
[11] 8 Allen (Mass.) 454. [12] 9 H.L. Cas. 503. [13] 14 Q.B.D. 125; 11 App. Cas. 127.
-
418.
The King v. Chappelle / The King v. Carmack / The King v. Tweed - (1902) 32 SCR 586 - 1902-11-18
Supreme Court JudgmentsMines and minerals
See Bain v. City of Montreal[3]; Ex parte Lewin[4]; Benjamin v. County of Elgin[5]; Langley v. Van Allen[6].
-
419.
Renaud v. Lamothe - (1902) 32 SCR 357 - 1902-05-15
Supreme Court JudgmentsEstates
Marsden ([13]); Allen v Jackson ([14]) ; Sutton v. Jewks ([15]) ; Stackpole v. Beaumont ([16]).
-
420.
Brophy v. North American Life Assurance Co. - (1902) 32 SCR 261 - 1902-05-06
Supreme Court JudgmentsInsurance
Hilliker[10]; Allen v. Merchants Marine Ins. Co.[11]. The policy is void under the Act. McFarlane v. Royal London Friendly Society[12]; Evans v. Bignold[13].
-
421.
Langley v. Van Allen and Co. - (1902) 32 SCR 174 - 1902-05-06
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
Langley v. Van Allen and Co., (1902) 32 SCR 174 Supreme Court of Canada [...] Langley v. Van Allen and Co., (1902) 32 S.C.R. 174 Date: 1902-05-06 [...] E. Van Allen and Company (Defendants) Respondents. 1902: March 21; 1902: May 6.
-
422.
Commercial Bank of Windsor v. Morrison - (1902) 32 SCR 98 - 1902-02-19
Supreme Court JudgmentsFinancial institutions
Manchester Trust v. Furness[9]; London Joint Stock Bank v. Simmons[10]; Allen v. Seckham[11]; English and Scottish Mercantile Investment Co. v. Brunton[12]. [...] Kettlewell v. Watson[29], per Frye J. at p. 705; Allen v. South Boston Railroad Co.[30].
-
423.
McCleave v. City of Moncton - (1902) 32 SCR 106 - 1902-02-19
Supreme Court JudgmentsMunicipal law
[10] 1 Allen [Mass.] 172. [11] 16 Gray [Mass.] 297. [12] 14 Q. L. R. 376.
-
424.
Hamelin v. Bannerman - (1901) 31 SCR 534 - 1901-11-16
Supreme Court JudgmentsProperty law
Co. v. Allen ([10]); Breakey v. Carter ([11]); Bazinet v. Gadoury ([12]); Demers v. Germain ([13]); 2 Demolombe " Contract " No. 4.
-
425.
Magann v. Auger et al. - (1901) 31 SCR 186 - 1901-03-18
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
[16] Allen Tel Cas 330 [17] 20 Q. B. D. 640. [18] 15 C. B. 501. [19] 4 Q. L. R. 321.