Responsible government in the Dominions: Responsible government in the Dominions

Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 2)

Bibliographic data

Multivolume work

Identifikator:: 1896933912

Document type:: Multivolume work

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Press

Year of publication:: 1912-

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Volume

Identifikator:: 1896935052

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-238139

Document type:: Volume

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Volume count:: Vol. 2

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Pr.

Year of publication:: 1912

Scope:: XI Seiten, Seiten 570-1100

Digitisation:: 2022

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Chapter

Document type:: Multivolume work

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: Part IV. The federations and the union // Chapter I. The dominion of Canada

Collection:: Economics Books

714 THE FEDERATIONS AND THE UNION [PART Iv (8) Banking, Insolvency, dc. Difficulties have also arisen in the case where both the Dominion and the provinces have legislative authority, and the decisions are often based on decidedly narrow lines. In the case of Tennant v. Union Bank of Canada the question arose as to whether an Act (46 Vict. ¢. 120) of the Dominion under which warehouse receipts were negotiable instruments was valid, or whether it must be held to be invalid as dealing with private rights in the province, a subject on which exclusive legislative authority was given to the province by s. 91 (13). It was then held that, though the matter was within the sphere of provincial authority, it fell also within the power of the Dominion as to banking, which included all transactions auxiliary to banking, and that the Dominion Act was accordingly valid. It was argued on behalf of the province that the power of the Dominion to legislate as to banking companies would enable it to deprive those companies of privileges conferred by provincial law, but that it would not enable it to confer on banking corporations privileges contradictory to such provincial law, but this view was not successful. On the other hand, in the case of Attorney-General of Ontario v. Attorney-General for the Dominion of Canada? the question arose whether an Ontario Act relative to voluntary assignments of property, which it preferred to incompleted judgements, was an infringement of the right of the Parlia- ment of Canada to legislate on bankruptcy, and it was held that it was not such an infringement so long as the Parliament of Canada had not in legislating on bankruptcy enacted a provision which would be contrary to the provincial legislation. It has been decided that an Act of the Dominion ‘ [1894] A. C. 31; cf. Lefroy, op. cit., pp. 426 seq. * [1894] A. C. 189, reversing 20 O. A. R. 489. Cf. Kinney v. Dudman, (1876) 2 R. & C. 19; Lefroy, pp. 438, 439; Peck v. Shields. (1880-3) 31 U.CCP. 112; 60. A.R. 639: 88. C. R. 579..

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 2)

Multivolume work

Volume

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Volume

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation