Skip to Search Facets Skip to Results
Full Search Search Help

Results: 53

  • Hinde v Sheppard

    04 Nov 1871 LR 7 Exch 21, Ex Ct

    COSTS — Certificate for Costs — Action which there is sufficient reason for bringing in a Superior Court

  • Sheffield Waterworks Co v Bennett

    26 Jul 1872 LR 7 Exch 409, Ex Ct

    12 May 1873 LR 8 Exch 196, Ex Ct

    WATER — Water rate — Rent

  • Frith v The Queen

    10 Jun 1872 LR 7 Exch 365, Ex Ct

    Subsequent citations: 1.
    PETITION OF RIGHT — 21 & 22 Vict. c. 106 (Act for the better Government of India, 1858) — Annexation of Province

  • Harrison v Bank of Australasia

    17 Jan 1872 LR 7 Exch 39, Ex Ct

    SHIPPING — Ship — Shipping

  • Liver Alkali Co v Johnson

    23 Apr 1872 LR 7 Exch 267, Ex Ct

    26 Jun 1874 LR 9 Exch 338, Ex Ct

    CARRIAGE OF GOODS — Common carrier — Fixed Termini

  • Lords Bailiff-Jurats Of Romney Marsh v Corpn Of The Trinity House

    11 May 1870 LR 5 Exch 204, Ex Ct

    11 May 1872 LR 7 Exch 247, Ex Ct

    NEGLIGENCE — Proximate Cause — Natural Forces.
    BLACKBURN, J. We are all of opinion that the judgment of the Court of Exchequer should be affirmed. The damage caused is stated to have been the inevitable consequence of the ship striking the bank through the defendants' negligence. That being so, they are clearly liable. KEATING, MELLOR, LUSH, BRETT, and GROVE, JJ., concurred.

  • Eadon v Jeffcock

    11 Jun 1872 LR 7 Exch 379, Ex Ct

    MINES — Injury to Surface — Subsidence.
    CLEASBY, B. This case was argued before my Brothers Martin and Bramwell and myself, and the judgment which I am about to read is that of my Brother Martin and myself. The question in this case is, whether the plaintiffs can recover against the defendants for damages to their houses or their land, caused by the subsidence of the latter. It must be taken as a fact in the case that the subsidence was caused by the working of the coal mines underneath by the defendants. When the property in the soil and in the minerals underneath belongs to different

  • Josselyn v Parson

    22 Jan 1872 LR 7 Exch 127, Ex Ct

    Subsequent citations: 1.
    COVENANT — Covenant not to carry on a trade — Construction

  • Buxton v Rust

    13 Nov 1871 LR 7 Exch 1, Ex Ct

    03 Jun 1872 LR 7 Exch 279, Ex Ct

    Subsequent considerations : 1 positive. Subsequent citations: 2.
    SALE OF GOODS — Memorandum in Writing — Statute of Frauds (29 Car. 2, c. 3), s. 17.
    WILLES, J. I am of opinion that the judgment of the Court below was right. The action was brought for the non-delivery of wool, alleged to have been sold to the plaintiff on the 11th of January, 1871; and there is no doubt that a bargain was made on that day. The question is whether it was sufficiently backed by a memorandum in writing, which was necessary under the Statute of Frauds, s. 17, the wool being worth more than 10l., and there having been no delivery either of the whole or in part, and no part payment. Now it

  • Whitechurch v East London Railway Co

    22 Apr 1872 LR 7 Exch 248, Ex Ct

    26 Jun 1872 LR 7 Exch 424, Ex Ct

    RATING — Liability of Company to make good Deficiency in Rates.
    BRETT, J. On the best consideration that I can give to this case I think the judgment of the Court of Exchequer ought to be reversed. I hold the opinion that I ventured to express at an earlier period of the case, that the words “in the parish,” must of necessity be read into some parts of the 128th section; for instance, after the words “assessment” and “deficiency,” because the section is dealing with the liabilities within the parish. But the question seems to be, whether those words are to be read into the section after the word “railway” in

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