870 resultados para Aerocar Company of Detroit
Resumo:
Letter to Mr. W. D. Woodruff from Henry Ahern of the United States Trust Company of New York (1 page, printed) which was sent with a cheque for $2,925. This is accompanied by an envelope addressed to the trust company, a balance sheet and a receipt, Jan. 11, 1909.
Resumo:
Letter to Mr. W. D. Woodruff from Henry Ahern of the United States Trust Company of New York (1 page, printed) which was sent with a cheque for $410.41. This is accompanied by an envelope addressed to the trust company, a balance sheet and a receipt, Jan. 21, 1909.
Resumo:
Receipt sent to Mr. Welland D. Woodruff from the United States Trust Company of New York, [this receipt is not accompanied by a letter, but belongs in this file with the other trust company items], Apr. 5, 1909.
Resumo:
Letter to Mr. W. D. Woodruff from Henry Ahern of the United States Trust Company of New York (1 page, printed) which was sent with a cheque for $2223. This is accompanied by an envelope addressed to Mr. Woodruff, a balance sheet, Jul. 9, 1909.
Resumo:
Letter to Mr. W.D. Woodruff from Henry Ahern of the United States Trust Company of New York (1 page, printed) which was sent with a cheque for $433.38. This is accompanied by an envelope addressed to Mr. Woodruff, a balance sheet and 2 receipts, Apr. 6, 1910.
Resumo:
Letter to Mr. W.D. Woodruff from Henry Ahern of the United States Trust Company of New York (1 page, printed) which was sent with a cheque for $1,886.23. This is accompanied by an envelope addressed to Mr. Woodruff, an envelope addressed to the trust company, 3 pages of balance sheets and 4 receipts, July 11, 1910.
Resumo:
Letter to Mr. W.D. Woodruff from Henry Ahern of the United States Trust Company of New York (1 page, printed) which was sent with a cheque for $3,160.90. This is accompanied by an envelope addressed to Mr. Woodruff, and 3 pages of balance sheets, Jan. 6, 1911.
Resumo:
Letter to Mr. W.D. Woodruff from Henry Ahern of the United States Trust Company of New York (1 page, printed) which was sent with a cheque for $3,160.90. This is accompanied by an envelope addressed to Mr. Woodruff, and 3 pages of balance sheets, Jan. 8, 1912.
Resumo:
Letter to Mr. W.D. Woodruff from Henry Ahern of the United States Trust Company of New York (1 page, printed) which was sent with a cheque for $511.88. This is accompanied by an envelope addressed to Mr. Woodruff, and 2 pages of balance sheets, Apr. 5, 1912.
Resumo:
Letter to Mr. W.D. Woodruff from Henry Ahern of the United States Trust Company of New York (1 page, printed) which was sent with a cheque for $511.88. This is accompanied by an envelope addressed to Mr. Woodruff, and 2 pages of balance sheets, Apr. 7, 1914.
Resumo:
Letter to Mr. Summer and Mr. Nelles from the Office of the N.D. Mutual Insurance Company of St. Catharines regarding an assessment of 4 % on the premium notes of this company. This is signed by Mr. Arnold, secretary of N.D. Mutual F. Insurance Company, Aug. 9, 1848.
Resumo:
Appointment of John B. Parkynn [Parkin] (J.P. Bradley’s brother) to be an Ensign of the 1st Company of the Royal Quebec Volunteers. This is signed by the Governor General, the Earl of Gosford and Governor General, Secretary J. Walcott, Nov. 27, 1837.
Resumo:
This article examines a little known decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council: Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada v Robinson (1915). The examination is historical and it provides a different insight into the understanding of privity of contract, a doctrine central to contract law. The examination reveals a process of trans-Atlantic legal migration in which English law was applied to resolve an Ontario case. The nature of the resolution is surprising because it appears to conflict with the better known decision of the House of Lords, Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company, Limited v Selfridge and Company, Limited, which a similarly constituted panel delivered in the same week. This article argues that there was a greater malleability in the resolution of cases concerned with privity than was thought to have existed. It is also argued that the power of Canadian railway capitalism is a significant factor in understanding the legal resolution of the case. Finally, it the article considers the use of English and American precedents relevant to the case. The application of English precedents to the case led to a resolution not entirely befitting Canadian conditions.