COLUMN. Southwold School Sections, Re, 3 0. 446, followed in Nolan v. Ocean 215 455 431 Staebler, Re, 21 A. R. 266, followed considered in Noble Five Mining 16 8 17 Taff Vale R. W. Co. v. Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, [1901] A. C. 429, distinguished in Metallic Roofing Co. of Canada v. Local Union No. 30, 23 Occ. N. 152, 5 O. L. R. 424.. 468 Tandy v. Tandy, 9 Dowl. 1044, referred to in Blakeston v. Wilson, 23 Occ. N. 27, 14 Man. L. R. 271 Taylor v. Caldwell, 3 B. & S. 826, distinguished in Ontario Electric Light and Power Co. v. Baxter and Galloway Co., 23 Occ. N. 152, 5 O. L. R. 419.... Taylor v. Cummings, 27 S. C. R. 592, distinguished in Roberts v. Hartley, 22 Occ. N. 185, 23 Occ. N. 53, 14 Man, L. R. 284. 184 VOL. XXIII. C. L.T.-ANN. DIG.-C 80 COLUMN. Thibault v. Robinson, Q. R. 3 Q. B. 280, followed in Sharpe v. Dick, Q. R. 22 S. C. 527.. Thompson v. London County Council, [1899] 1 Q. B. 845, referred to in Hart v. Bissett, 23 Occ. N. 335.. Thompson's Estate, In re, 14 Ch. D. 263, followed in Re McDonald, 35 N. S. Reps. 500. Thorne v. Parsons, 22 Occ. N. 379, 4 O. L. R. 682, affirmed in S. C. 23 Occ. N. 180, 33 S. C. R. 309 Tobey Furniture Co v. Macmaster, Q. R. 21 S. C. 336, affirmed in S. C., Q. R. 12 K. B. 34. . . . . . . Tobin v. McGillis, 12 P. R. 60 n., commented on in McKelvey v. Chilman, 23 Occ. N. 114, 5 0. L. R. 263 Tomey Homma, In re, 21 Occ. N. 424, 8 Brit. Col. L. R. 76, reversed in Cunningham v. Tomey Homma. [1903] A. C. 151..... Toronto, City of, v. Bell Telephone Co. of Canada. 22 Occ. N. 142, 3 0. L. R. 465, reversed in S. C. 23 Occ. N. 277, 6 O. L. R. 335 440 333 463 457 390 97 70 715 76 Toronto General Hospital Trustees 21 Occ. N. 493, 2 O. L. R. 251, Tuck & Sons v. Priester, 19 Q. B. V. COLUMN. Vancouver Incorporation Act, 1900, and B. T. Rogers, In re, 9 Brit. Col. L. R. 373, not followed in S. C., ib. 495.... Van Norman v. McNaught, 22 Occ. N. 341, 9 Brit. Col. L. R. 131, affirmed in S. C., 23 Occ. N. 63, 32 S. C. R. 690. Vye v. McNeill, 3 Brit. Col. L. R. 24, approved in Yorkshire Guarantee and Securities Corporation v. Cooper, 23 Occ. N. 302, 10 Brit. Col. L. R. 65... W. 26 275 167 Watts, Re, 29 Ch. D. 947, distin- 373 16 A. R. 100, followed in Royle v. Canadian Northern R. W. Co., 23 Occ. N. 25, 14 Man. L. R. 275 West Wellington Case, 1 E. C._16, distinguished in In re East Middlesex Provincial Election, 23 Occ. N. 183, 5 O. L. R. 644. 326 Wilding v. Sanderson, [1897] 2 Ch. 534, referred to in Beaudry v. Gallien, 23 Occ. N. 46, 5 0. L. R. 73 Wilkie v. Jellett, 15 Occ. N. 315, 2 225 383 COLUMN Wilkinson v. Page, 1 Hare 276, followed in Blakeston v. Wilson, 23 Occ. N. 27, 14 Man. L. R. 271 Wilson V. Canadian Development Co., 22 Occ. N. 271, 8 Brit. Col. L. R. 82, reversed in S. C., 33 S. C. R. 432. Wilson v. City of Montreal, 24 L. C. Jur. 222, approved in Ross v. The King, 23 Occ. N, 33, 32 S. C. R. 532.. Wood v. Sutcliffe, 2 Sim. N. S. 168, distinguished in Miller v. Campbell, 23 Occ. N. 233, 14 Man, L. R. 437 Wright v. Mattison, 59 U. S. R. 50, followed in In re Canadian Pacific R. W. Co. and Lechtzier, 23 Occ. N. 339... ར་ 17 386 210 241 Yates v. Yates, 28 Beav. 637, fol- 1 O'M. & H. 291, followed in In Young V. Dominion Construction 471 THE CANADIAN LAW TIMES. ANNUAL DIGEST, 1903. ABANDONMENT. See BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY, I.—. NOTICE OF INSCRIPTION. ABORTION. See CRIMINAL LAW, II. 1, III. 6. ACCELERATION. See LIMITATION OF ACTIONS, II. 3-VENDOR AND PURCHASER, 1. ACCIDENT INSURANCE. See INSURANCE, I. ACCORD AND SATISFACTION. See BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND PROMISSORY NOTES, 13. 3. Extra-judicial accounts- Form - Administration Reformation of account-Action en reddition.]-The rendering of an account divided into distinct heads of receipts, disbursements, and balances, is only required by law in the case of accounts which are rendered in the cause in pursuance of a judgment. No particular form is necessary for extrajudicial accounts, and it is sufficient if they give such details in regard to their subject as will make it possible to check them. 2. When an account of an administration is rendered, the person to whom it is rendered has no right, upon the ground that it is incomplete or inexact, to begin an action en reddition de compte; he should proceed by way of action for reformation of the account. Beaudry v. Prévost, Q. R. 22 S. C. 32. See ARBITRATION AND AWARD, 1-ARREST, III. 7-BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND PROMISSORY NOTES, 3-DISCOVERY, I. 3— INTEREST, 2-LIMITATION OF ACTIONS, II. 1-LIS PENDENS, 2-MISTAKE-PARTICULARS, 1, 2-PARTNERSHIP, 2-PLEADING, IV. 1. ACCOUNT. 1. Action on - Neglect to file-Order.]-A plaintiff, who sues upon an account without filing it, and whose declaration is in general terms, will be ordered upon motion of the defendant to file his account, and to serve a copy upon the defendant. Lachine Rapids Co. v. Hemond, 5 Q. P. R. 138. 2. Co-heirs - Form of action.] -An heir has no right to sue one of his coheirs en reddition de compte, but the only action which he can bring is an action en compte et partage. Renaud v. Delfausse, 5 Q. P. R. 230. VOL. XXIII. O.L.T.-ANN. DIG.-1 ACQUIESCENCE. See APPEAL, X. 6-BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY, I. 7-CERTIORARI, 1COSTS, I. 2 EXECUTION, IV. 2PILOTS, 2-SOLICITOR, 2-TENANTS IN COMMON-WATER AND WATERCOURSES, 5. ACTION. Dismissal for want of prosecution-Party in default-Costs.]-1. A party interested who is bound to continue a suit is not entitled to a mise en demeure, the law itself putting him in default to do so.-2. When a continuance of suit is not See COMPANY, III. 3-CONSOLIDATION PEREMPTION AND - RAILWAY, VII, 3-TRIAL -WATER AND WATERCOURSES, 4. ADMINISTRATION. See ACCOUNT,3-DISTRIBUTION OF ES- ADMINISTRATOR. See EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS. ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE. ADMISSIONS. See CONTRACT, VIII. 4-COSTS, VII. 3- ADVERTISING. See CRIMINAL LAW, II. 1. ADVOCATE. See COSTS, I. 4, III. 1, 2-CROWN, IV. 2 Railway comChinese immi 1. Transportation pany-Habeas corpus.] grants not included in the privilege established by law concerning Chinese immigrants brought from their own country to the American frontier upon the representation made by them that they had the right to enter the United States, which is afterwards refused to them by the United States authorities, cannot afterwards upon habeas corpus obtain their release from the custody of the railway company transporting them and desiring to take them back to their own country. Chew v. Canadian Pacific R. W. Co., 5 Q. P. R. 453. 2. Chinese immigrants who are refused admission in the United States, and do not appeal from the decision so rendered against them, are not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus, while being transported from the United States to China, in conformity with the agreement between the United States and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. Pacific R. W. Co., 6 Q. P. R. 14. Chew v. Canadian See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 1-CRIMINAL LAW, II. 5-TRADE MARK, 2. AMENDMENT. See APPEAL, II. 1, IV., X. 4-ARREST, III. 1-BANKS AND BANKING, 1, 4 -BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND PROMISSORY NOTES, 2, 3, 7-COMPANY, III. 25, IV. 3-CONTRACT, VIII. COSTS, VII, 2-CRIMINAL LAW, II. 5, 15, IV. 3-JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, 3-LANDLORD AND TENANT, III. 17, VI. 1-LIQUOR ACT OF ONTARIO, 1 MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, 5 MUNIMINES AND MINERALS, 5 CIPAL CORPORATIONS, I. 1, IX. 4, XV. 2, XVI. 9-MUNICIPAL ELEC- PARTIONS, 3 OPPOSITION, 11TICULARS, 1-PLEADING, V.-PRINCIPAL AND AGENT, 3-RAILWAY, II. 1-SALE OF GOODS. IV. 1-WRIT OF SUMMONS, I. 8. See BILLS AND NOTES, 3-CHAMPERTY -CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 11-CONTEMPT OF COURT, 3, 5-CONTRACT. III. 2COSTS, V. 3. VI, 6. VIII. 1-COURTS, IX. 1, 6-CRIMINAL LAW, IV. 1, 2-EVIDENCE, IV, 2-EXECUTION, IV. 1, 5-INJUNCTION, 5-JUDGMENT, IV. 3-JUDGMENT DEBTOR, 3-LUNATIC, 2. 3-PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS, IV.-PLEADING, II. BRITISH COLUMBIA-APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT. 1. Amending Judge's notes of evidence.]—On the hearing of an appeal from the decision of a County Court Judge, counsel for the appellant applied to introduce further evidence alleged to have been omitted from the Judge's notes of evidence taken at the trial.-The Court refused the application, holding that where a party desires to introduce, on an appeal, evidence alleged to have been omitted from the Judge's notes of evidence, he should first apply to the Judge to amend his notes. Rendell v. McLellan, 23 Occ. N. 57, 9 Brit. Col. L. R. 328. 2. Costs Appeal partly successful.] -An appellant who is substantially successful is entitled to the costs of appeal. The fact that a respondent is successful in some parts is not sufficient to deprive an appellant who is substantially successful of his costs. Centre Star Mining Co. v. Rossland Miners' Union, 23 Occ. N. 272. 3. Introducing fresh evidence on appeal.]-Motions by the appellants to admit in the full Court further evidence on the hearing of appeal from a judgment at the trial were dismissed-Held, that an application to admit further evidence which might have been adduced at the trial, should be supported by the affidavit of the applicant indicating the evidence desired to be used, and setting forth when and how the applicant came to be aware of its existence, what efforts, if any. he made to have it adduced at the trial, and that he is advised and believes that if it had been so adduced, the result would probably have been different. Marino v. Sproat, 23 Occ. N. 31, 9 Brit. Col. L. R. 335. |