Recherche avancée
- toutes les collections (4,780)
- Décisions (2,367)
- Ressources (2,169)
4,780 résultat(s)
-
4,001.
The Ottawa Electric Railway Co. v. Booth - (1920) 63 SCR 444 - 1920-12-17
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Responsabilité civile
The deceased was a clerk in the Militia Department which then occupied a building on the south side of Slater Street, about 150 feet east of Elgin Street, and, on the morning of the day in question for the purpose of reaching his office, two blocks distant, he, in company with two fellow clerks, William J. Peary and Theo.
-
4,002.
Upper Canada College v. Smith - (1920) 61 SCR 413 - 1920-12-17
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Action
First, a word as to the decisions under the statute of William IV. The language of section 8 of 3 & 4, Wm. IV, ch. 27, was held to be retrospective. [...] The Court, (Williams J., Martin B., Willes J., Bramwell, B., Watson B., and Byles J.) held that such operation could not be given to that section without offending against Lord Coke’s canon. [...] In the Court of Appeal A.L. Smith L.J. and Vaughan Williams L.J., treated the Act as an act dealing with procedure only and therefore retrospective.
-
4,003.
Rodgers v. Williams - (1920) 60 SCR 664 - 1920-11-23
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Mandat
Rodgers v. Williams, (1920) 60 SCR 664 Supreme Court of Canada Rodgers v. Williams, (1920) 60 S.C.R. 664 [...] Rodgers v. Williams 1920: October 20, 21; 1920: November 23. Present: Idington, Duff, Anglin, Brodeur and Mignault JJ.
-
4,004.
SCR | RCS (1920) vol 60 - 1920-11-23
Recueil des arrêts de la Cour suprême du CanadaI cannot look upon the deposit of William Strang's cheque with William Strang & Son as being a loan to a shareholder. [...] And moreover the firm of William Strang & Son was, by the law of Scotland, duly proved in this çase, a legal entity entirely distinct from William Strang personally. [...] Secondly, the firm of William Strang & Son is a legal entity distinct from William Strang personally.
-
4,005.
Boily v. La Corporation de St. Henri de Taillon - (1920) 61 SCR 40 - 1920-06-21
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Droit municipal
Il y avait une quatrième cause, William Tremblay v. La Corporation de St-Henri de Taillon, où on avait également appelé du jugement de la Cour du Banc du Roi siégeant en appel. [...] Il est possible que la quatrième action (William Tremblay v. La Corporation de St-Henri de Taillon), soulevait cette question, point sur lequel je ne me prononce pas, mais je cherche en vain une allégation de ce moyen de nullité dans la réponse des appelants.
-
4,006.
Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company v. Canadian Car and Foundry Co. - (1920) 61 SCR 78 - 1920-06-21
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Propriété intellectuelle
These apparatus were bought by the French Republic in New York and shipped to itself at Fort William. [...] He added that the vessels were all delivered by the defendant at Fort William. [...] The wireless apparatus was purchased by that Government in New York and was consigned to it at Fort William.
-
4,007.
Minister of Finance of B.C. v. Royal Trust Co. - (1920) 61 SCR 127 - 1920-06-21
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Successions
IDINGTON J.—The late Sir William Van Horne was domiciled in Quebec when he made his last will and testament and died on the 11th of September, 1915, possessed of an estate of the aggregate value of $6,371, 374.31, of which $300,000 worth was situated in the Province of British Columbia. [...] It asks merely a declaration that the amount of the duty payable under it in respect of the $290,463.25, net value of the estate of the late Sir William Van Horne, K.C.M.G., situate in British Columbia, is $8,523.16 and not $14,242.10 as claimed by the province. [...] The late Sir William Van Horne left an estate of the aggregate value of $6,371,374.73, with liabilities of $169,989.56, so that the net value of the estate was $6,201,385.17.
-
4,008.
Sayre & Gilfoy v. Security Trust Co. - (1920) 61 SCR 109 - 1920-06-21
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Priorités et hypothèques
A. Judson Sayre And William M. Gilfoy (Defendants) Appellants; and [...] Grand Trunk Pacific Ely. v. Fort William Property Owners[8]. If not entitled to maintain the order as it stands the respondent asks that it should be set aside in toto and to that relief it is entitled. [...] of this order or a certified copy hereof cancel the existing Certificate of Title and issue a new Certificate of Title in the name of the said The Security Trust Company, Limited, and William Murray Connacher, free and clear of all encumbrances subsequent to and inclusive of the plaintiff's mortgage sued on herein;
-
4,009.
Montreal Dry Docks and Ship Repairing Co. v. Halifax Shipyards - (1920) 60 SCR 359 - 1920-05-04
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Transport
The learned trial judge (Drysdale J.) allowed the intervenor's claim for priority in respect of expenditure incurred before the arrest—properly no doubt, recognizing and protecting its common law possessory lien therefor; Williams v. Allsup,[3]; 26 Hals.
-
4,010.
Wabash Railway Co. v. Follick - (1920) 60 SCR 375 - 1920-05-04
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Responsabilité civile
William Follick (Plaintiff) Respondent. 1920: March 25; 1920: May 4.
-
4,011.
Bainton v. John Hallam Limited - (1920) 60 SCR 325 - 1920-04-06
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Responsabilité civile
Mayne on Damages, (8th ed.) p. 228; Rodocanachi v. Milburn Bros.[2]; Williams Bros. v. Agius, Limited[3]. [...] Rodocanachi v. Milburn Bros.[8]; Williams Bros. v. Agius, Limited[9]. [...] As stated by Lord Haldane in Williams Brothers v. Agius, Limited[10], at page 520:—
-
4,012.
Curley v. Latreille - (1920) 60 SCR 131 - 1920-02-03
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Responsabilité civile
The French court extends the doctrine of the English deviation cases such as Venables y. Smith[11]; (see also Williams v. Koehler & Co.,[12]; and Chicago Consolidated Bottling Co. v. McGinnis[13]); and treats as merely an abuse of the employment what would in England be regarded as something clearly outside its course, [...] Both Vaughan Williams L. J. and Fletcher-Moulton L. J. dwell on the fact of the driver's belief that he was discharging his duty; he knew nothing of the limitation on the manager's right to use the company's cars. [...] In England under the like circumstances the master was held not liable (Williams v. Jones[61], by the majority of the Court of Exchequer (Erle C. J. Keating and Smith JJ.) on the ground that the lighting of the pipe was not in any way connected with the work for which the servant was employed.
-
4,013.
Desrosiers v. The King - (1920) 60 SCR 105 - 1920-02-03
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Mandat
& Co. v. Westmoreland,)[7] depends rather upon the doctrine of English law that the single debt arising out of the contract has been merged in the judgment—transit in rem judicatam—as Lord Cairns points out in Kendall v. Hamilton,[8], and Vaughan-Williams L. J., in Hammond v. Schofield,[9] See too, Sullivan v.
-
4,014.
Gauvreau v. Page - (1920) 60 SCR 181 - 1920-02-03
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Transport
Quand le cadastre de la paroisse fut préparé en 1877 ou 1878 par le témoin Lepage, William Page, fils de Henry Page et père de l'intimé, lui fournit des renseignements au sujet de ces terrains, et Lepage donna un numéro sur le plan officiel au chemin, en raison, dit-il, des renseignements qu'il reçut de Page. [...] En 1881, William Page a vendu à la mère de l'appelant un emplacement situé à l'angle du chemin Page et du chemin maritime, qui est le terrain desservi par l'aqueduc dont l'intimé se plaint. [...] Cette petite route est celle qu'on allègue être devenue un chemin public, et l'intimé prétend que la description qu'en fait l'acte démontre que William Page réclamait, en 1881, la propriété de ce chemin.
-
4,015.
Henderson v. Strang - (1920) 60 SCR 201 - 1920-02-03
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Droit commercial
I cannot look upon the deposit of William Strang’s cheque with William Strang & Son as being a loan to a shareholder. [...] And moreover the firm of William Strang & Son was, by the law of Scotland, duly proved in this case, a legal entity entirely distinct from William Strang personally. [...] Secondly, the firm of William Strang & Son is a legal entity distinct from William Strang personally.
-
4,016.
SCR | RCS (1920) vol 59 - 1920-01-01
Recueil des arrêts de la Cour suprême du CanadaVOL. LIX.] SUPREME COURT OF CANADA. 9 WILLIAM MAGILL AND LOUISE) A 0. [...] Solicitor for the appellants: William Johnston. Solicitor for the respondent: William Laidlaw. [...] The respondent Williams then received an anonymous letter calling him a "scab."
-
4,017.
Scotland v. Canadian Cartridge Co. - (1919) 59 SCR 471 - 1919-12-22
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]William Husband, formerly a foreman with the defendant, says: [Page 493] [...] William Husband, a former foreman of the annealing department, tells of having complained of the ventilation in the winter of 1916, while Scotland was working there, to the superintendent, Mr. Embree, and suggested the introduction of suction fans.
-
4,018.
Winnipeg Electric Railway Co. v. Canadian Northern Railway Co. - (1919) 59 SCR 352 - 1919-11-10
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Responsabilité civile
O. H. Clarke K.C. for the respondent cited "The Bywell Castle"[4], at pages 223 and 227; "The Tasmania"[5], at page 226; Weir v. Colmore-Williams[6].
-
4,019.
Canadian Pacific Rway. Co., v. Albin Idington J - (1919) 59 SCR 151 - 1919-10-20
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Transport
Their earlier decision in Grand Trunk Pacific Rly. Co. v. Fort William Land Investment Co.[54], points in the same direction. [...] Solicitor for the appellants: William Johnston. Solicitor for the respondent: William Laidlaw.
-
4,020.
Case Threshing Machine Co. v. Mitten - (1919) 59 SCR 118 - 1919-10-14
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Vente
William J. Mitten. The learned trial judge, who decided in favour of the respondents, and whose judgment was affirmed by
-
4,021.
Fullerton v. Crawford - (1919) 59 SCR 314 - 1919-10-14
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Droit commercial
Vaughan-Williams L.J. at page 565; Stirling L.J. at page 569; Cozens-Hardy L.J. at page 572.
-
4,022.
United Mine Workers of America, Local No. 1562 v. Williams and Rees - (1919) 59 SCR 240 - 1919-10-14
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Droit du travail
United Mine Workers of America, Local No. 1562 v. Williams and Rees, , (1919) 59 SCR 240 [...] William Williams and W. H. Rees (Plaintiffs) Respondents 1919: May 8, 9; 1919: October 14. [...] The respondent Williams then received an anonymous letter calling him a "scab."
-
4,023.
SCR | RCS (1919) vol 58 - 1919-05-19
Recueil des arrêts de la Cour suprême du CanadaDufresne v. Fee Duhault v. Pacaud Dunlop & Sons v. Balfour William- [1892] 1 Q.B. 507 son & Co Dunlop Pneumatic Tire Co. v Moseley Dussault v. The King 16 Ex. C.R. 228. [...] AND WILLIAM HOWARD HAY (PLAIN- l r RESPONDENT. TIFF) ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR SASKATCHEWAN. Railway — Liability — Injury to passenger — Negligence — Moving train—Jumping off—Under guidance of brakesman. [...] Solicitors for the respondents: Williams, Walsh, McKim & Housser. VOL. LVIII.] SUPREME COURT OF CANADA. 349 EDWARD McCARTHY (CLAIMANT) . ..
-
4,024.
Magill v. The Township of Moore and The Moore Municipal Telephone Association - (1919) 59 SCR 9 - 1919-05-06
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Appel
William Magill and Louise Magill (Plaintiffs) Appellants; and The Township of Moore and The Moore Municipal Telephone Association (Defendants) Respondents. [...] While the judgment entered in the trial court was for $1,500, that sum was apportioned under sec. 4 (1) of R.S.O. ch. 151, $500 to the plaintiff William Magill, and $1,000 to the plaintiff Louisa Magill. [...] The Appellate Division reversed the judgment, Sir William Meredith C.J. dissenting, the main reason, as I read the opinion of Mr. Justice Hodgins, being that while the learned trial judge was entitled to draw the inference that the obstruction resulting from the wires, having caused the driver to stoop or crouch down, was
-
4,025.
Maritime Coal, Railway and Power Co. v. Herdman - (1919) 59 SCR 127 - 1919-05-06
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Responsabilité civile
Wilma Pearl Herdman, Administratrix of The Estate of William Walker Herdman (Plaintiff). [...] When the evidence as to this user by the public of the railway tracks is examined it is seen that two witnesses, Charles A. Smith and Stuart Rector, say they walked on the railway track at their own risk, one, Rufus S. Hibbard, supposed that in doing so he was a trespasser, and William McIsaac admits that he did not think