Beck v. Canadian Northern Railway Co.
Court headnote
Beck v. Canadian Northern Railway Co. Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1910-11-21 Report (1910) 47 SCR 397 Judges Fitzpatrick, Charles; Girouard, Désiré; Davies, Louis Henry; Idington, John; Anglin, Francis Alexander On appeal from Alberta Subjects Torts Decision Content Supreme Court of Canada Beck v. Canadian Northern Railway Co., (1910) 47 S.C.R. 397 Date: 1910-11-21 Beck; v. Canadian northern Railway Co 1910: October 24; 1910: November 21. Present:—Sir Charles Fitzpatrick C.J. and Girouard, Davies, Idington and Anglin JJ. ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ALBERTA. Negligence—Operation of railway—Protection of passenger—Evidence —Mere conjecture. APPEAL from the judgment of the Supreme Court of Alberta[1], affirming the judgment of Harvey J., at the trial, dismissing the plaintiff's action with costs. On the appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, after hearing counsel on behalf of both parties, the court reserved judgment, and, on a subsequent day, made an order that a new trial should be had, the Chief Justice and Idington J. dissenting. New trial ordered. Wallace Nesbitt K.C. for the appellant. Chrysler K.C. for the respondents. [1] 2 Alta. L.R. 549. …
Read full judgment
Beck v. Canadian Northern Railway Co. Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1910-11-21 Report (1910) 47 SCR 397 Judges Fitzpatrick, Charles; Girouard, Désiré; Davies, Louis Henry; Idington, John; Anglin, Francis Alexander On appeal from Alberta Subjects Torts Decision Content Supreme Court of Canada Beck v. Canadian Northern Railway Co., (1910) 47 S.C.R. 397 Date: 1910-11-21 Beck; v. Canadian northern Railway Co 1910: October 24; 1910: November 21. Present:—Sir Charles Fitzpatrick C.J. and Girouard, Davies, Idington and Anglin JJ. ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ALBERTA. Negligence—Operation of railway—Protection of passenger—Evidence —Mere conjecture. APPEAL from the judgment of the Supreme Court of Alberta[1], affirming the judgment of Harvey J., at the trial, dismissing the plaintiff's action with costs. On the appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, after hearing counsel on behalf of both parties, the court reserved judgment, and, on a subsequent day, made an order that a new trial should be had, the Chief Justice and Idington J. dissenting. New trial ordered. Wallace Nesbitt K.C. for the appellant. Chrysler K.C. for the respondents. [1] 2 Alta. L.R. 549.
Source: decisions.scc-csc.ca