The Ontario Reports; Containing Reports of Cases Decided in the Queen's Bench, Chancery, and Common Pleas Divisions of the High Court of Justice for Ontario Volume 12

The Ontario Reports; Containing Reports of Cases Decided in the Queen's Bench, Chancery, and Common Pleas Divisions of the High Court of Justice for Ontario Volume 12

List price: US$10.25

Currently unavailable

Add to wishlist

AbeBooks may have this title (opens in new window).

Try AbeBooks

Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1887 edition. Excerpt: ...defendants were bound under the Dominion Act to make the alteration in the bridge necessary to make it. conform to the requirements of the said amended 5th subsec. of sec. 15 of the Consolidated Railway Act of 1879; and that Act gives a personal right of action, and not merely makes the neglect to comply with its requirements a criminal oflence. I have already expressed my opinion on the first point;-and I think the defendants are entitled to succeed on the second also. The plaintiff, as far as personal remedy is concerned, is in the same position as other persons, and has no special right conferred upon him by the said fifth sub-section. The Ontario Act has been held by the Court of Appeal, in Monkhouse v. Grand Trunk R. W. 00., 8 A. R. 637, not to apply to these defendants. The Midland by the 'Ontario Act would apparently be liable to this plaintiff; but I do not assume to decide upon that in the absence of that company, and only venture to say that primd facie, that company comes within the express language of the Act. The plaintifi"s verdict must be set aside, and judgment for the defendants dismissing the plaintiff's action entered, with costs. Ross, J.--Mr. Barron claims that the defendants are liable under the Dominion Act 42 Vic. ch. 9, sec. 15, sub-sec. 5 (1879), amended by 44 Vic. ch. 24, sec. 3 (1881). At the date of passing either Act the defendant company had nothing to do with the line, and had no duty imposed upon it with respect to the bridge in question, nor did these Acts apply to the Midland Railway Company. By 44 Vic. ch. 22 (O), by a. similar provision, such duty was cast upon the Midland, if indeed the section can be construed so as to impose the duty upon a railway company at all. The section, as also the...show more

Product details

  • Paperback | 300 pages
  • 189 x 246 x 16mm | 540g
  • Rarebooksclub.com
  • United States
  • English
  • black & white illustrations
  • 1236942949
  • 9781236942944