Hyperlawhypertext legal database Smith v. The Saint John Railway Co. / Consolidated Electric Co. v. Atlantic Trust Co. / Co (1898) 28 SCR 603

← Cases

Smith v. The Saint John Railway Co. / Consolidated Electric Co. v. Atlantic Trust Co. / Co

(1898) 28 SCR 603 Court SCC Decision date 1898-06-14 English

Decision Majority · Judgment of the Court

Contents

Majority

..
...... AP E L N ; THE SAINT
JOHN CITY RAIL- WAY COMPANY AND OTHERS
(DEFENDANTS).............................
THE CONSOLIDATED ELECTRIC
COMPANY (PLAINTIFF) ..............
AND
THE ATLANTIC
TRUST
C 0 M- PANY
AND
OTHERS
(DE- FENDANTS) ........ ..........................
THE CONSOLIDATFD ELECTRIC
COMPANY (DEFENDANT) ............
RESPONDENTS. APPELLANT; RESPONDENTS. APPELLANT. NATHAN D. PRATT AND OTHERS
RESPONDENTS. PLAINTIFFS).........................
ON
APPEAL
FROM
SUPREME
COURT
OF NEW BRUNSWICK.

Judgment of the Court

J.-We are all of opinion that these appeals should not be allowed.
They relate solely to an order of Mr. Justice Hanington asking that the costs of several actions should be taxed as if these actions had been consolidated by a formal order as they were intended to be as evidenced Can. C.

(2) 8 D.

(5) S. C.
by the verbal direction of Mr. Justice Palmer then sitting as Judge in Equity and hearing the cases.
It is only in extreme cases where some fundamental principle of justice has been ignored, or where some gross error appears that this court will interfere with the discretion of provincial courts in awarding or withholding costs.
This is not such a case.
For my own part I think the order of Mr. Justice Hanington was properly made.
There was no doubt that Mr.
TE Justice Palmer when at an early stage he heard these cases directed that they should be consolidated and that direction was a matter of record.
If the appellants, they having the conduct of the several cases, did not choose to take out the order they have only themselves to blame, and Mr. Justice Hanington was perfectly right in putting in formal shape what was the expressed intention of his predecessor.
The learned counsel for the appellants, it seems to us, gave a wider scope to the order appealed from than we think it bears.
The taxing authority will doubtless tax him not only for all the disbursements in the three cases but for all work necessarily done over and above what would have been done had there been only one suit.
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Solicitor for the appellants: William Pugsley.
Solicitor for the respondents, The St. John City
Railway Company and others: Arthur . Trueman.
Solicitor for the respondents, The Imperial Trust
Company of Canada: L. P. Tilley.
Solicitor for the respondents, The Molsons Bank and New Brunswick Electric.Company: C. T. Coster.
Solicitor for the respondent Pratt : A. G. Blair.
Solicitor for the respondent Hayward:
H McKeown.
Nova Scotia (sub nomine Eastern Trust Co. v. Forest et al.) (1) en banc affirming the decision of Mr. Justice Meagher at the trial (1) in favour of the plaintiffs. After hearing counsel for both parties the court dismissed the appeal for the reasons given in the court below but without delivering any judgment in writing.
Ross Q.C. for the appellants.
McInnes for the respondent.
:-Sir CORPORATION
OF THE
COUNTY OF CARLETON.
*Mar.
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF OTTAWA. of-55 (Ont.)-Oity APPEAL from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario (2), dismissing an appeal and a crossan award of arbitrators under the Municipal Act as to the costs of the care and maintenance of prisoners, and as to the use by the City of Ottawa of the CourtlHouse and Gaol of the Cunty of Carleton.
After hearing counsel on the part of the appellant, and without calling upon counsel for the respondent, the court dismissed the appeal with costs, but without giving any written reasons for judgment.
Chrysler Q.C. for the appellant.
O'Gara Q.C. and Wyld for the respondent.
THE BRITISH AND FOREIGN MARINE INSUR- ANCE COMPANY v. RUDOLF.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Supreme Court of
Nova Scotia en bane (1) refusing to set aside the verdict of a special jury in favour of the plaintiff.
After hearing counsel for both parties the court reserved judgment and on a subsequent day dismissed the appeal but without giving any written reasons for judgment.
Harris Q.C. for the appellant.
Newcombe Q.C. for the respondent.
Giouard
JJ.
Canada (1) which declared a certain patent of invention to be a good, valid and subsisting patent, and that it had been infringed by the defendants, and making absolute an injunction against the defendants in respect thereof with costs.
After hearing counsel for both parties the court reserved judgment and on a subsequent day dismissed the appeal with costs and without giving any written reasons for judgment.
Geoffrion Q.C. and Martin for the appellants. Atwater Q.C. and Duclos for the respondent.
ALLEY v. THE CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE CO. APPEAL from the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada,, (appeal side) affirming the judgment of the Superior Court, District of Montreal which dismissed the plaintiff's action with costs.
After hearing counsel for both parties the court reserved judgment and on a subsequent day dismissed the appeal with costs for the reasons stated by the judges in the Court of Queen's Bench, but without delivering any written reasons for judgment.
Lafteur and Lamothe for the appellants.
Falconer for the respondent.