Results: 59

• Crisp v Martin (No 2)

  13 Jul 1876 2 PD 15, Arches Ct

  ECCLESIASTICAL LAW — Faculty — Prescriptive Right to Pew
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  ECCLESIASTICAL LAW — Faculty — Prescriptive Right to Pew — 3 & 4 Wm. 4, c. 71, s. 2.

• Westhead v Westhead and Gordon

  08 Nov 1876 2 PD 1, CA

  Subsequent citations: 1.
  PRACTICE — New Trial in Divorce Court — Appeal from Refusal of Rule to shew Cause
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  PRACTICE — New Trial in Divorce Court — Appeal from Refusal of Rule to shew Cause — Divorce Court Act, 1860, s. 2 — Judicature Act, 1873, s. 19 — Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876, s. 20.

  3 Statutes considered

• The Glannibanta (E 333)

  13 Dec 1876 2 PD 45, PDA

  SHIPPING — Distribution of salvage — Jurisdiction
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  SHIPPING — Distribution of salvage — Jurisdiction — County Court Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. c. 71), s. 3, subs. 1 — Merchant Shipping Act, 1854 (17 & 18 Vict. c. 104), s. 498.

  2 Statutes considered

• The Andalusian (A 342)

  07 Aug 1877 2 PD 231, PDA

  COLLISION — Precautions to be taken by those in charge of Vessel about to be launched on the River Mersey — Burden of Proof.
  Aug. 7. SIR ROBERT PHILLIMORE. This is a case of collision which took place in the River Mersey on the 14th of July in this year between one and two o'clock in the afternoon. It took place in this way — by a vessel culled the Andalusian being launched stern foremost into the river and striking the port side of a vessel called the Angerona with her stern, the Angerona being at that time in tow of a tug and going down the river on her road to sea. The question which the Court hag had to consider, with the
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  COLLISION — Precautions to be taken by those in charge of Vessel about to be launched on the River Mersey — Burden of Proof.

• Sly v Sly and Dredge

  06 Feb 1877 2 PD 91, PDA

  WILL — Lost will — Copy
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  WILL — Lost will — Copy — Evidence.

• In The Goods of Hugo

  20 Feb 1877 2 PD 73, PDA

  Subsequent citations: 2.
  WILL — Conditional — Clause of Revocation.
  SIR J. HANNEN (President). I think this application must be granted. In the case of In the Goods of De Silva Sir C. Cresswell granted probate of a codicil, although conditional, because it would have the effect of republishing the will, or even of making it valid, if it had not been duly executed. I agree in that decision, relating as it does to a codicil to a will. Now, the question I have to consider is, whether this instrument ought to be admitted to probate at all as the will of the testator. To determine that I must see
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  WILL — Conditional — Clause of Revocation.

• Cheese v Lovejoy

  20 Jul 1877 2 PD 251, CA

  Subsequent citations: 1.
  WILL — Revocation — 7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 26, s. 20
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  WILL — Revocation — 7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 26, s. 20 — “Otherwise destroying.”

• Willis v The Bishop Of Oxford

  02 Dec 1876 2 PD 192, Arches Ct

  PRACTICE — Duplex querela — Practice
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  PRACTICE — Duplex querela — Practice — Refusal of Bishop to Institute on the ground of Insufficiency in Learning — Responsive Plea — Standard of Learning — Costs.

• The Franconia (B 207)

  08 Dec 1876 2 PD 8, CA

  Subsequent citations: 1.
  SHIPPING — Overtaking vessel — Crossing Vessel
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  SHIPPING — Overtaking vessel — Crossing Vessel — Regulations, Articles 14, 16 — English Channel — Proper Course.

• The Evangelistria (E 298) (Note)

  08 Aug 1876 2 PD 241, PDA

  Subsequent citations: 1.
  SIR ROBERT PHILLIMORE. This case has been very carefully and elaborately argued, and it raises a question by no means free from difficulty, but at the same time a careful examination of the matter results in this, that the only question the Court has to determine is whether it has jurisdiction to examine into the claims of the respective parties to the suit. The contest is between two foreigners, each claiming possession of the vessel, one contending that he is the actual possessor, and that he had never parted with the property in the ship by sale or otherwise, the