Skip to Search Facets Skip to Results
Full Search Search Help

Results: 147

  • Cox v Cox, Reade, and Tobin

    24 Jan 1871 LR 2 PD 201, PD

    HUSBAND AND WIFE — Suit for dissolution — Special Jury

  • Miller v Miller (No 2)

    23 Nov 1869 LR 2 PD 13, PD

    HUSBAND AND WIFE — Suit for restitution by husband — Gross Charges made by Respondent abandoned at the Hearing

  • Mordaunt v Mordaunt, Cole, and Johnstone (No 1)

    25 Feb 1870 LR 2 PD 103, PD

    LUNACY — Evidence — Suit for Dissolution

  • Covell v Covell

    04 Jun 1872 LR 2 PD 411, PD

    JUDICIAL SEPARATION — Permanent Alimony — Petition after Decree made

  • Ravenscroft v Ravenscroft and Smith; The Queen’s Proctor Intervening

    20 Feb 1872 LR 2 PD 376, PD

    MARRIAGE — Matrimonial suit — Decree Nisi with Costs

  • In The Goods of Durance

    11 Jun 1872 LR 2 PD 406, PD

    WILL — Codicil — Directions to destroy Will

  • Burdon v Morgan

    20 Feb 1872 LR 2 PD 371, PD

    ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES — Limited administration — Assignee

  • Giles and Clark v Warren

    23 May 1872 LR 2 PD 401, PD

    WILL — Revocation by tearing — Intention.
    LORD PENZANCE. I think in this case there was no revocation. The fact that a testator tears or destroys his will is not itself sufficient to revoke one properly executed. That is to say, the bare fact. If, for instance, he tears it imagining it to be some other document, there would be no revocation, for there would be no animus revocandi. He must intend by the act to revoke something, that he had previously done. There can be no intention to revoke a will, if a person destroys the paper under the idea, whether right or wrong, that it

  • Griffiths v Griffiths and Griffiths

    14 Nov 1871 LR 2 PD 300, PD

    WILL — Execution — Attest and subscribe.
    LORD PENZANCE. As no case has been cited on either side, I must take time to look into them, for it is advisable in these matters of execution, that the Court should follow the previous decisions. The statute requires the witnesses shall attest, and shall subscribe; if, therefore, a witness puts his name on the paper alio intuitu, it will not suffice. On the other hand, the Court ought not to be psych to conclude that, because the testator does not ask the witness in so many words to attest his signature, it is, therefore, not a good execution. Nov.

  • In The Goods of W Coles

    28 Nov 1871 LR 2 PD 362, PD

    WILL — Paper not clearly Testamentary — Intention.
    LORD PENZANCE. The question is, is this paper testamentary? A case was decided by me some time ago (Cock v. Cooke,) of a somewhat similar character. The principle is plain that where a paper is intended by the testator to take effect after his death, it will be admitted to probate, whatever may be its form. Although this paper contains the word “given” instead of “give,” the Court cannot hesitate to say that the testator meant that the property should pass on his death, he could not mean to make over all his property to the persons mentioned at once.

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