Skip to Search Facets Skip to Results
Full Search Search Help

Results: 137

  • In Re Green’s Settlement

    18 Dec 1865 LR 1 Eq 288, Equity

    PRESUMPTION — Survivorship — Onus probandi

  • In Re East Kongsberg Co

    20 Dec 1865 LR 1 Eq 309, Equity

    COMPANY — Contributory — Forfeiture of Shares.
    SIR W. PAGE WOOD, V.C., after stating the facts relating to the terms of the articles of association and of the notice, continued:— As far as the company are concerned (I am not, of course, considering now what the effect of their acts may be, I am merely mentioning what their acts were), they did not treat the letter of the 17th of February as operating as an actual forfeiture upon the termination of the period when the calls ought to have been paid. They did not treat it in that way, because they subsequently entered into resolutions forfeiting some

  • In Re Wyndham’s Trusts

    18 Dec 1865 LR 1 Eq 290, Equity

    WILL — “Personal Representative” — “Issue”

  • Talbot v Marshfield (No 1)

    06 Nov 1865 LR 1 Eq 6, Equity

    PRACTICE — Production — Documents

  • Bermondsey Vestry v Brown

    07 Dec 1865 LR 1 Eq 204, Equity

    Subsequent considerations : 1 neutral. Subsequent citations: 1.
    EASEMENT — Way — Dedication

  • In Re Tarsey’s Trust

    24 Feb 1866 LR 1 Eq 561, Equity

    WILL — Separate use — Sole use.
    SIR W. PAGE WOOD, V.C.:— This case is not free from difficulty; a great portion of the doubt arising from the reasons which are stated by Lord Westbury in the case which has been cited. It struck me from the first that there was a peculiarity in this case arising from this: that in a former part of the will there is a direction that the sum of 2000l. should be invested in the names of trustees upon trust for the Petitioner for life, for her own sole and separate use. But after that legacy comes the bequest of all

  • In re Leeds Banking Co (No 1); Ex p Prange

    14 Nov 1865 LR 1 Eq 1, Equity

    BILL OF EXCHANGE — Indorsement “in need” — Notice of Dishonour.
    Nov. 14. SIR R. T. KINDERSLEY, V.C.:— It is contended on the part of Messrs. Prange with respect to both the bills, first, that it was not necessary to give to the indorser any notice of dishonour; or, secondly, that if it was necessary, the presentation of the bills to Messrs. Smith, Payne, & Smith for payment, operated as a sufficient notice to the indorser. It is admitted that for the first proposition there is no direct authority; but it was argued that as it has been decided that when an acceptor, by the terms of his acceptance, refers to

  • Lawes v Gibson

    07 Nov 1865 LR 1 Eq 135, Equity

    SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE — Conditions of sale — “Outgoings”

  • Yeomans v Williams

    20 Dec 1865 LR 1 Eq 184, Equity

    DEBT — Release — Covenant

  • Campbell v Campbell

    22 Jan 1866 LR 1 Eq 383, Equity

    ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES — Portions — Satisfaction.
    Jan. 22. SIR W. PAGE WOOD, V.C.:— This case involves a short point arising upon the will of the late Dr. Hume, who bequeathed legacies of considerable amount to each of his grandchildren, the younger children of his daughter, he having in his lifetime settled, by an instrument in the Scottish form, £4000, a sum less than the provisions made by his will, upon his daughter for life, and after the death of the survivor of herself and her husband, upon certain trusts for the benefit of her younger children, as declared in that Scottish instrument. The question is, whether

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