What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Other editions - View all
accident agreement Alberta amount appeal applicant company basis Board of Railway Board of Trade British Columbia by-law Canadian Northern Canadian Northern Railway Canadian Pacific Railway carrier cents charge Chief Commissioner city of Hamilton company's complaint construction cost crossing damages deceased defendants distance Dominion East Eastern Canada effect evidence facts are fully filed follows Fredericton freight Grand Trunk Pacific Grand Trunk Railway Hamilton Street Railway haul injury Interstate Commerce Commission joint tariff judgment jurisdiction jury Lachute lumber main line Manitoba matter ment Michipicoten Midland Company miles Montreal movement municipality negligence Ontario Ontario Company operating opinion Pacific Railway Company pany parties passenger plaintiff points present Provinces provisions question rail Railway Act Railway Commissioners reasonable reduced respondent result Saskatchewan shew shewn shipments shipper special Act statute street railway sub-section tariff telephone territory tion tolls track traffic Wallaceburg water competition Western Winnipeg Yonge street
Page 443 - to the provisions of this Act, to charge or receive any greater compensation in the aggregate for the transportation of passengers, or of like kind of property, for a shorter than for a longer distance over the same line or route, in the same direction, the shorter being included in the longer distance. . . .
Page 151 - or for any provincial or municipal government, or for charitable purposes, or to or from fairs and expositions for exhibition thereat, or the carriage free or at reduced rates, of destitute or homeless persons, transported by charitable societies, and the necessary agencies employed in such transportation;
Page 322 - the carriage, storage, or handling of traffic, free or at reduced rates, for the Dominion, or for any provincial or municipal government, or for charitable purposes, or to or from fairs and expositions for exhibition thereat, or the carriage, free or at reduced rates, of destitute or homeless persons, transported by charitable societies, and the necessary agencies employed in such transportation;
Page 352 - which the appellants are desirous of constructing and operating without having obtained any franchise or statutory authority so to do. Their Lordships will, therefore, humbly advise His Majesty that this appeal should be dismissed. The appellants will pay the costs of the appeal.
Page 27 - and defendant respectively are practically simultaneous, the received and usual direction to the jury is to say that if the plaintiff could, by the exercise of such care and skill as he was bound to exercise, have avoided the consequence of the defendant's negligence, he cannot recover: per Lord Blackburn in Dublin, Wicklow and Wexford
Page 149 - lower toll or difference in treatment is necessary for the purpose of .securing in the interests of the public the traffic in respect of which it is made, and whether such object cannot be attained without unduly reducing the higher tolls.
Page 321 - 2. No reduction or advance in any such tolls shall be made, either directly or indirectly, in favour of or against any particular person or company travelling upon or using the railway.
Page 446 - All such tolls shall always, under substantially similar circumstances and conditions, in respect of all traffic of the same description, and carried in or upon the like kind of cars, passing over the same portion of the line of railway, be charged equally to all persons and at the same rate, whether by weight, mileage, or otherwise.
Page 343 - Claims for loss, damage, or delay must be made in writing to the carrier at the point of delivery or at the point of origin within four months after delivery of the property, or, in case of failure to make delivery, then within four months after a reasonable time for delivery has elapsed. Unless claims are so made the carrier shall not be liable.
Page 300 - the appellant. But the correspondence which has been produced reveals to us that the company had requested the respondent to bind himself to ship 3,500 cars and he positively refused to undertake such an obligation. This third point is therefore ill-founded. Upon the whole I am of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed with