SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1914 Supreme(SC) 66

John Deere Plow Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Theodore F. Wharton – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Brown, Addison , Linklater, Lawrence Jones and Co., Lau fleur, Raymond Asquith, Newcombe , F.W. Wegenast

Viscount Haldane:—

These are consolidated appeals from judgments of the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The Attorney-General for the Dominions and the Attorney-General for the Province have intervened.

By the first of the judgments the appellant company was restrained at the suit of the respondent Wharton from carrying on business in the Province until the company should have become licensed under Part VI of the British Columbia Companies Act. By the second judgment the appellants' action against the respondent Duck for goods sold and delivered was dismissed. The real question in both cases is one of importance. It concerns the distribution between the Dominion and the Provincial Legislatures of powers as regards incorporated companies.

The appellants are a company incorporated in 1907 by Letters Patent issued by the Secretary of State for Canada under the Companies Act of the Dominion. The Letters Patent purported to authorize it to carry on throughout Canada the business of a dealer in agricultural implements. It has been held by the Court below that certain provisions of the British Columbia Companies Act have been validly enacted by the Provincial Legislature. These provisions
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top