944 resultados para Northern Central Railway Company.
Resumo:
Mode of access: Internet.
Indenture between The St. Catharines and Niagara Central Railway Company and Samuel DeVeaux Woodruff
Resumo:
Indenture of deed of land situate between The St. Catharines and Niagara Central Railway Company and Samuel DeVeaux Woodruff of St. Catharines regarding parts of Lots no. 12 and 13 30 in the 8th Concession of the Township of Grantham. This was registered at Merritton on Feb. 2, 1891 – instrument no. 1021, Aug. 16, 1890.
Resumo:
Cover title.
Resumo:
"Report and order of the Commission."
Resumo:
Title from cover.
Resumo:
Mode of access: Internet.
Resumo:
Mode of access: Internet.
Resumo:
Mode of access: Internet.
Resumo:
[V.1.] Proceedings on Master's sale -- [v.2.] Decree of forclosure and sale -- [v.3.] Ancillary decree of foreclosure and sale.
Resumo:
Voucher from the Engineer Department of Port Dalhousie and Thorold Railway Extension for W.G. Thompson for the Northern Division. There are attached notes from the Welland Railway Company to John Mitchell for putting up shelves; to William Waud, staff; and to William Martin to repair the office (copy), June 10, 1857.
Resumo:
Signed: H. Nathan Swaim, chairman, Ridgley P. Melvin, Russell Wolfe.
Resumo:
Cover title.
Resumo:
Vol. [1]-[2]. Applicants' opening brief. F.G. Dorety, F.M. Angellotti [and others], attorneys.--v. [3]-[5] Brief for Southern Pacific company, Union Pacific railroad company, Oregon short line railroad company, Oregon-Washington railroad & navigation company and Los Angeles & Salt Lake railroad company, interveners. B.C. Dey, G.V. Shoup [and others] attorneys.
Resumo:
Mode of access: Internet.
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.