Recherche avancée
- toutes les collections (4,780)
- Décisions (2,367)
- Ressources (2,169)
4,780 résultat(s)
-
3,851.
Abran v. Perkins Electric Ltd. - [1931] SCR 636 - 1931-06-12
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Action
L’honorable juge-en-chef Lafontaine, Re: Miller v. Williams & Clement[2] disait:
-
3,852.
In re Roach - [1931] SCR 512 - 1931-05-26
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Successions
(3) The result was that, on John’s death, and after payment of the legacies to Thomas and William, the residue of the estate belonged to George, the estate of Martin, and the estate of Mary, in equal shares. [...] The personal representatives of those who died in the lifetime of John are entitled to the property (Williams on Executors, 11th ed., p. 800), subject to the power of apportionment now remaining to be discussed. [...] The scheme devised by the testatrix is that the entire estate is to be held in trust by the three executors, first to provide maintenance for John Roach, and “then to be divided among (the) remaining sons and daughter”, and the division is to be “as follows”: $1,000 to Thomas Roach, $1,000 to William J. Roach, and
-
3,853.
McNeil v. The King - [1931] SCR 505 - 1931-05-20
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Droit criminel
Ignatius McNeil, William McNeil and Dennis McNeil Appellants; and His Majesty The King Respondent. [...] William McNeil tried this day on a charge of shop breaking by night with intent. [...] Ignatius McNeil was sentenced to six months in the common gaol, William McNeil to two years in the Dorchester penitentiary, and Dennis McNeil to two years and six months in the Dorchester penitentiary.
-
3,854.
Lidstone v. McWilliams - [1931] SCR 695 - 1931-05-11
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Successions
William Nelson McWilliams and James B. Champion, Executors of the Last Will and Testament of Alfred McWilliams, deceased Respondents.
-
3,855.
British Columbia Electric Railway Co., Ltd. v. Key - [1932] SCR 106 - 1931-05-01
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Responsabilité civile
In the case of Williams v. Wilcox[4] , Lord Denman observed: [Page 111]
-
3,856.
May, SS. v. The King - [1931] SCR 374 - 1931-04-28
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Pêche
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.
-
3,857.
Queen City, SS. v. The King / Sunrise, SS. v. The King / Tillie M., SS. v. The King - [1931] SCR 387 - 1931-04-28
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Pêche
In The Eleanor4, Sir William Scott enunciated the principle which, in our opinion, applies to the weaknesses of the vessels as above set out.
-
3,858.
Johnston v. Canadian Credit Men's Trust Association - [1932] SCR 219 - 1931-03-01
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Législation
W. E. Williams K.C. for the respondent. The judgment of the court was delivered by [...] Solicitors for the respondent: Williams, Manson, Gonzales & Taylor. [1] (1931) 44 B.C.R. 354; [1931] 3 W.W.R. 33; [1931] 4 D.L.R. 569.
-
3,859.
McAskill v. The King - [1931] SCR 330 - 1931-02-24
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Droit criminel
William N. MacAskill Appellant; and His Majesty The King Respondent.
-
3,860.
Brewster Transport Co. v. Rocky Mountain Tours & Transport Co. - [1931] SCR 336 - 1930-12-23
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Vente
Rocky Mountain Tours and Transport Company, Limited, Rocky Mountain Royal Blue Line Motor Tours Limited, James I. Mcleod, William Warren, and C. E. Sibbald (Defendants) Respondents
-
3,861.
Harris v. Lindeborg - [1931] SCR 235 - 1930-12-23
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Mines et minéraux
William F. Harris (Plaintiff) Appellant; and Daniel Lindeborg And Another (Defendants) Respondents. [...] Mr. William Harris Dear frend I got a letter from you about a month ago I rote you in September from hear and I gess it must have gon a strae you no the claim you had on Salmon river me and Dan Lenderborg staked it and we Bonded all of ower Claims on Salmon River as near as I can figer it out you will get about five
-
3,862.
Society Brand Clothes Ltd. v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America - [1931] SCR 321 - 1930-12-23
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Droit du travail
Our present Chief Justice, in Local Union No. 1562, United Mine Workers of America et al v. Williams et al[3], said, at page 257: [...] Dans la cause des United Mine Workers of America v. Williams, jugée par la Cour Suprême du Canada[8], “the issue of want of legal entity was sufficiently raised by the explicit denial of the allegation that the local union was a body corporate.”
-
3,863.
Town of Montreal West v. Hough - [1931] SCR 113 - 1930-12-23
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Droit de la famille
A like view was taken In re Wood[58], where the difficulty of importing such an intention is dealt with by Vaughan Williams L.J.; and In re Corsellis[59].
-
3,864.
Easterbrook v. The King - [1931] SCR 210 - 1930-12-15
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]État
Solicitor for the respondent: William C. McCarthy. [1] [1926] Ex. C.R. 28.
-
3,865.
Fulton v. Creelman - [1931] SCR 221 - 1930-12-15
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Droit des biens
William P. Creelman (Defendant) Respondent. 1930: October 20; 1930: December 15. [...] Ordered upon the presentment of the Grand Jury that the sum of £8 be assessed upon the settlement of Stewiacke for repairing the bridge over the river at William Fulton’s house, and for other necessary repairs of highways where Robert Gamiel, Commissioner, shall find it necessary.
-
3,866.
Ferguson et al. v. MacLean et al. - [1930] SCR 630 - 1930-10-07
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Droit commercial
By earlier legislation of the province of New Brunswick, set forth at length by the Chief Justice in his judgment, to wit, c. 11, 1 William IV, (1831), c. 18, 2 William IV, (1832), c. 15, 3 William IV, (1833), c. 48, 38 Vic., (1875), and c. 99, 38 Vic., (1875), it was made abundantly clear that the property of St. James [...] controlled without some clear expression or necessary implication.” Reversion is a well known legal expression, and its meaning and the distinction between it and a remainder is clearly pointed out in the passage from Williams on Real Property (14th Ed., p. 255) to which we were referred by the counsel for the defendants. [...] This view has the support of the Court of Appeal in Tillmanns & Co. v. SS. Knutsford Ltd.[21], in which Farwell L.J. said (at p. 403): “Unless you can find a category there is no room for the application of the ejusdem generis doctrine.” To the same effect are the judgments of Vaughan Williams L.J., at page 395, and of
-
3,867.
Reference re legislative powers as to regulation and control of aeronautics in Canada - [1930] SCR 663 - 1930-10-07
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Droit constitutionnel
It is now suggested because the power conferred by the Canadian Act, which is not and could not be wider in its terms than that of William IV, applicable to the Judicial Committee, has resulted in asking questions affecting the provinces, or alleged to do so.
-
3,868.
SCR | RCS [1930] - 1930-10-07
Recueil des arrêts de la Cour suprême du CanadaIt is necessary to look at the earlier instrument, known as the Prince William grant. [...] 290 SUPREME COURT OF CANADA , [1930 1929 (2) The Crow's Nest rate from Calgary to Fort William. [...] To the same effect are the judgments of Vaughan Williams L.J., at page 395, and of Kennedy L.J., at page 406.
-
3,869.
Montgomery et al. v. Rural Municipality of Assiniboia - [1930] SCR 494 - 1930-06-11
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Droit municipal
The said drain be cleaned, altered and deepened, in accordance with the recommendations, plans and specifications, of William Fulton, District Engineer, for the Provincial Government, heretofore annexed marked Exhibit A and identified by the signature of the Reeve and Secretary-Treasurer, and that said work be carried out
-
3,870.
Minister of National Revenue v. Saskatchewan Co-operative Wheat Producers Ltd. - [1930] SCR 402 - 1930-04-10
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Droit fiscal
See also judgment of Vaughan Williams L.J., in Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States v. Bishop[12].
-
3,871.
Ryan v. Charlesworth - [1930] SCR 427 - 1930-04-10
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Successions
The extent to which the doctrine that his debt was extinguished was carried is further illustrated by the cases collected in Williams on Executors, vol. ii, p. 1180, which shew that an executor, having assets sufficient and properly applicable to pay a debt due to him from his testator, could not sue the testator’s heir nor
-
3,872.
Steedman v. Sparks & McKay - [1930] SCR 351 - 1930-02-26
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Priorités et hypothèques
William Sparks and William A. McKay, Carrying on Business as Building Contractors Under the Name, Style and Firm of “Sparks & McKay (Plaintiffs) Respondents; [...] William J. Lord, and Others (Defendants). James P. Steedman (Defendant) Appellant; [...] William J. Lord, and Others (Defendants). 1929: November 5; 1930: February 26.
-
3,873.
Boyd v. Wray / O'Connor v. Wray - [1930] SCR 231 - 1930-02-04
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Automobile
William Wray (Defendant) Respondent. Dame Gertrude Boyd (Plaintiff) Appellant; [...] William Wray (Defendant) Respondent. 1929: November 20; 1930: February 4.
-
3,874.
Canada Morning News Co. v. Thompson et al. - [1930] SCR 338 - 1930-02-04
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Louage
It was so held upon the express ground that " Rennie (the assignee) only stands in the shoes of Williams " (the lessor); [...] as the defendant was not competent to impeach the title of Williams, neither is he competent to impeach that of Rennie.
-
3,875.
Knight Sugar Co. v. Webster - [1930] SCR 518 - 1930-02-04
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Contrat
William B. Webster (Defendant) Respondent 1929: October 2; 1930: February 4.