Recherche avancée
- toutes les collections (4,780)
- Décisions (2,367)
- Ressources (2,169)
4,780 résultat(s)
-
4,326.
Wilson et al. v. Windsor Foundry Co. - (1901) 31 SCR 381 - 1901-05-13
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Contrat
The plaintiffs (appellants), carried on business at Montreal under the style of "A. R. Williams & Co.," and brought the action against the respondent for the price of an engine, ordered by respondents in writing, and other machinery supplied in connection with repairs to the foundry, amounting in all, according to the
-
4,327.
Consumers Cordage Co. v. Connolly - (1901) 31 SCR 244 - 1901-03-28
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Contrat
We need not trouble for the present at least, about these imaginary cases, and we may treat them as the legendary English one of Everett v. Williams, where, in 1725, the highwayman, in a disguised declaration, was suing his companion to account for his share in the plunder.
-
4,328.
Bell v. Vipond et al. - (1901) 31 SCR 175 - 1901-03-08
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Appel
WILLIAM BELL (PLAINTIFF) Appellant; And GEORGE VIPOND, et al (DEFENDANTS)
-
4,329.
Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Guthrie - (1901) 31 SCR 155 - 1901-02-19
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Droit des biens
The said parties of the first part grant to the said party of the second part and to the tenants and occupiers of the said lands hereby granted a right at all times to use in common with the owners, tenants and occupiers of the land of the said late Charles McGeorge the land described in the deed from William Dickson to
-
4,330.
Kent v. Ellis - (1900) 31 SCR 110 - 1900-12-07
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Procédure civile
This court will not interfere with a decision such as is now appealed from as it is upon a mere question of procedure; Dawson v. Union Bank[13]; Gladwin v. Cummings[14]; Ferrier v. Trépannier[15]; Scammell v. James[16]; Williams v. Leonard & Sons[17].
-
4,331.
Sunlife Assurance Co. v. Elliott - (1900) 31 SCR 91 - 1900-12-07
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Vente
Sir William Grant in Kidney v Coussmaker[12] referring to this case, said that as that bill had charged insolvency at the time of the execution of the voluntary settlement, and no proof was given of any debt in existence at that time,
-
4,332.
Clergue v. Humphrey - (1900) 31 SCR 66 - 1900-11-13
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Action
Samuel F. Humphrey and William S. Adams, Executors of David Bugbee, Deceased (Plaintiffs) Respondents. [...] Ker v. Williams[2]; United Telephone Co. v. Tasker[3]; Lancaster v. Moss[4].
-
4,333.
L'Association Pharmaceutique de Québec v. Livernois - (1900) 31 SCR 43 - 1900-11-13
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Appel
The amending Act passed pending this litigation cannot affect the proceedings it cannot be construed retrospectively; Maxwell, Statutes (3ed.) pp. 588, 589; 50 Vict. ch. 5 s. 7 (Que.); R. S. Q. Art. 11; Couture v. Bouchard ([4]); Williams v. Irvine ([5]).
-
4,334.
Ryan v. Willoughby - (1900) 31 SCR 33 - 1900-11-12
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Contrat
William Willoughby (Defendant) Respondent. 1900: October 31; 1900: November 2, 12.
-
4,335.
City of Montreal v. Hogan - (1900) 31 SCR 1 - 1900-10-22
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Appel
" Piché v. City of Quebec ([12]); Férrier v. Trépannier ([13]); Gorman v Dixon ([14]); Williams v. Leonard & Sons ([15]) ; Lumbers v. Gold Medal Furniture Manufacturing Co. ([16]).
-
4,336.
Allan v. Price - (1900) 30 SCR 536 - 1900-10-08
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Vente
WILLIAM PRICE (DEFENDANT) Respondent. 1900: Oct 5; 1900: Oct 8 PRESENT:—Taschereau, Gwynne, Sedgewick, King and Girouard JJ.
-
4,337.
City of Montreal v. Bélanger - (1900) 30 SCR 574 - 1900-10-08
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Expropriation
The following authorities are cited: — Angell on Highways (2 ed.) pp. 215-226; In re William and Anthony Streets ([3]); in re John and Cherry Streets ([4]); In re Pearl Street ([5]); Morrison v. Mayor of Montreal ([6]); Lemoine v. City of Montreal ([7]); Benning v. Atlantic & Northwest Railway Col ([8]); Atlantic &
-
4,338.
Michaels v. Michaels - (1900) 30 SCR 547 - 1900-10-08
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Contrat
See Williams on Executors (9 ed.) pp. 739 and 798; also [Page 458] Fleet v. Perrins[1], per Blackburn J. at p. 541-2,(1868), decided before the earliest Married Woman's Property Act; Datton y. Midland Counties Railway Co.[2]; Gates v. Madeley[3], per Parke B. at page 427; Richards v. Richards[4]; Sherrington v. Yates[5];
-
4,339.
Price v. LeBlond - (1900) 30 SCR 539 - 1900-10-08
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Louage
WILLIAM PRICE AND AMOS COLSTON, EXECUTORS OF THE LATE EVAN JOHN PRICE (PLAINTIFFS)
-
4,340.
SCR | RCS (1900) vol 30 - 1900-10-08
Recueil des arrêts de la Cour suprême du CanadaI don't know that Mathe-son gave the keys to my brother William—William pays no rent—I jnst allow him to occupy. [...] Then he says William paid no rent, " I just allow him to occupy." This does not prove that William is a tenant under John R. Handley. [...] The share of the said Christian William Kammerer to be 208/538. The share of the said William Henry Bone to be 165/- 538.
-
4,341.
Sutherland-Innes Co. v. Romney (Township) - (1900) 30 SCR 495 - 1900-10-04
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Droit municipal
This appears to be the effect of the judgment of the Privy Council in Williams v. Corporation of Raleigh[9].
-
4,342.
Dueber Watch Case Manufacturing Co. v. Taggart - (1900) 30 SCR 373 - 1900-06-12
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Contrat
The business was then carried on by Moore on behalf of the plaintiffs, or I should rather say by the plaintiffs through the intervention of Moore, who placed Taggart and one Williams acting in the interest of Buntin, Reid & Co., in possession of the stock in trade conveyed by Clarkson, and of such other goods as the
-
4,343.
Hibben v. Collister - (1900) 30 SCR 459 - 1900-06-12
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Contrat
The share of the said Christian William Kammerer to be 208/538. The share of the said William Henry Bone to be 165/538. [...] "1. That the said Thomas Napier Hibben, Christian William Kammerer and William Henry Bone will become and remain partners in the business aforesaid for the term of seven years from the date of these presents if they shall so long live. [...] 8. The said Thomas Napier Hibben, C. W. A. Kammerer and William Henry Bone carried on the business under the said partnership deed until the death of the said Thomas Napier Hibben, and thereafter the said Janet Parker Hibben and Christian William August Kammerer and William Henry Bone carried on the said business under the
-
4,344.
Parsons et al. v. Hart - (1900) 30 SCR 473 - 1900-06-12
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Droit civil
WILLIAM A. PICK, Master. The declaration of the respondent contained the following statements :
-
4,345.
Waters v. Manigault - (1900) 30 SCR 304 - 1900-05-23
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Appel
William M. Manigault and Others (Defendants) Respondent. 1900: May 23.
-
4,346.
Cully v. Ferdais - (1900) 30 SCR 330 - 1900-05-17
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Appel
WILLIAM CULLY (OPPOSANT) Appellant; And FRANCOIS ALIAS FRANCIS FER DAIS (CONTESTANT)
-
4,347.
Leak v. Toronto (City) - (1900) 30 SCR 321 - 1900-04-21
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Expropriation
William Leak (Plaintiff) Appellant; and The Corporation of the City of Toronto (Defendant) Respondent.
-
4,348.
Asbestos & Asbestic Co. v. Durand - (1900) 30 SCR 285 - 1900-04-02
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Responsabilité civile
It appears from the evidence of "Williams the superintendent of the mine, that the daily average use was about four boxes and that the course of business was that a person specially entrusted with the duty would, in the morning and again at noon, carry two of the boxes from the magazine to the hoisting engine room, were
-
4,349.
Halifax Electric Tramway Co. v. Inglis - (1900) 30 SCR 256 - 1900-04-02
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Responsabilité civile
William P. C. Inglis (Plaintiff) Respondent 1900: Feb. 21, 22; 1900: April 2. [...] He also cited with approbation the judgment of Mr. Justice Williams in Toomey v. London and Brighton Railway Co.[7], who enunciates the rule thus.
-
4,350.
Hart v. McMullen - (1900) 30 SCR 245 - 1900-04-02
Jugements de la Cour suprême [ Anglais ]Vente
See notes on Pinnington v. Galland and Hall v. Lund[38]; Washburn on Easements, p. 58; Rackley v. Sprague[39], and cases there cited; Hathorn v. Stinson[40]; Baker v. Bessey[41]; Richardson v. Bigtlow[42]; Lammott v. Ewers[43]; Oakley v. Stanley[44]; Bayley v. Great Western Railway Co.[45]; Broomfield v. Williams[46]. [...] Solicitor for the appellant: William A. Henry. Solicitor for the respondent: Norman J. Layton.