Skip to Search Facets Skip to Results
Full Search Search Help

Results: 76

  • Miss Ann and Miss Jessie Mcpherson v Dr Thomas Watt and John Watt, Jun

    03 Dec 1877 3 App Cas 254, HL

    Subsequent citations: 1.
    SOLICITOR — Disguised purchase by a solicitor from his own clients.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR:— My Lords, in this case two separate proceedings originated in the Court of Session. One of these was a proceeding for the purpose of implementing, or, as we should say in this country, of obtaining the specific performance of, a contract for the sale by the Appellants to the Respondent, Dr. Watt, of four houses in Aberdeen. The other proceeding commenced with a summons for reducing the documents and letters which constitute the contract for the sale of those houses. In those two proceedings taken together, an interlocutor was pronounced by the Lord Ordinary, which, in substance,

  • Borjesson, Messrs Wright & Co, v Carlberg (Second Appeal)

    09 Jun 1878 3 App Cas 1322, HL

    SHIPPING — Ship, foreign — Re-arrestments held invalid.
    LORD CAIRNS, L.C.: — My Lords, I think it is clear that this appeal cannot be sustained. If those who executed the second arrestments were acting in concert with those who were parties to the first arrestment, their authority cannot be maintained. What was done by the first Appellant was illegal in bringing the property into a position in which he thought be could effectuate the arrestment for his own purposes by the second proceeding. The first proceeding was by the name-sake of the present Appellants, who was authorized by them to act for them, and it is perfectly clear

  • Frederick Levi Plaintiff; and Sir Henry Ayers Defendants

    28 May 1878 3 App Cas 842, PC

    BANKRUPTCY — South australian insolvent act, 1860, division vi. — Assignee in Bankruptcy

  • Thomas Chaloner v Henry W F Bolckow

    12 Apr 1878 3 App Cas 933, HL

    REVENUE — Taxes — Deduction

  • Chambers v Smith

    15 Apr 1878 3 App Cas 795, HL

    TRUST — Settlement — Unlimited Discretionary Power of Trustees to postpone Payment

  • Dudgeon v Thomson and Donaldson

    10 Jul 1877 3 App Cas 34, HL

    Subsequent citations: 2.
    APPEAL — Appeal allowed, to prevent further litigation.
    PATENT — Patent, infringement of.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR:— My Lords, the argument at your Lordships' Bar has occupied a portion of time altogether disproportionate to the difficulty of the case and to the complexity of the facts required for its determination. It is only necessary to remind your Lordships exactly of what those facts are. The Appellant is the owner of a patent granted in the month of March, 1866. The original specification was modified very largely by a disclaimer and memorandum of alteration dated in the month of May, 1875. But, my Lords, during this interval of nine years between the date of the

  • The Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens Of Montreal v Harrison Stephens

    01 Feb 1878 3 App Cas 605, PC

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT — Commissioners in expropriation — Apportionment of Indemnity

  • Charles Brown Fisher v William Alcock Tully

    14 Mar 1878 3 App Cas 627, PC

    Subsequent citations: 1.
    CROWN — Crown lands alienation act, 1868 — Grant in Fee refused

  • Duke Of Roxburghe v Millar

    29 Jun 1877 3 App Cas 14, HL

    ECCLESIASTICAL LAW — Allocation of area and seats in a new church.
    ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES — Effect on heritors disjoined quoad sacra.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR:— My Lords, the question in this appeal is as to the propriety of two interlocutors dated the 30th of April, 1875, and the 2nd of June, 1876. By the second of these interlocutors the First Division of the Court of Session confirmed the former interlocutor, which had been made by the Sheriff; and by this former interlocutor the Sheriff had found that in the division and apportionment of the area and seatings of the new parish church of Jedburgh the heritors of certain lands disjoined from that parish and erected into the parish of Edgerston quoad sacra

  • Rossiter and Curtis v Miller

    22 Jul 1878 3 App Cas 1124, HL

    Subsequent citations: 8.
    CONTRACT — Statute of Frauds — Specific Performance.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Cairns): — My Lords, after a careful and anxious consideration of this case, I regret to say that I am not able to look at it in the point of view in which it has presented itself to the learned Judges of the Court of Appeal. My Lords, the appeal arises in an action for specific performance, brought by the vendors of certain property against the purchaser; and in that action three questions have been raised, one, which I will call the principal question, and two others, which are to some extent subordinate. The principal one,

We use cookies on this website, you can read our Privacy and Cookies Policy. To use website as intended please Accept Cookies