Skip to Search Facets Skip to Results
Full Search Search Help

Results: 46

  • Baker v Baker

    06 Apr 1880 5 PD 142, PDA

    22 Jun 1880 6 PD 12, DC

    Subsequent citations: 1.
    HUSBAND AND WIFE — Dissolution of marriage — Lunatic Petitioner

  • Taylor v Taylor (1881)

    08 Feb 1881 6 PD 29, PDA

    ADMINISTRATION — Administrator pending suit — Receiver pending Suit

  • In The Goods of Elizabeth Tomlinson

    24 May 1881 6 PD 209, PDA

    MARRIAGE — Married woman — Will of Realty

  • In The Goods of The Baroness Von Buseck

    03 Aug 1881 6 PD 211, PDA

    WILL — Foreigner — English Form

  • The John Mcintyre

    19 Jul 1881 6 PD 200, PDA

    19 Jun 1884 9 PD 135, CA

    ADMIRALTY — Sailing rules — Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea

  • The Leon (1881 P 76, Folio 6)

    23 Jun 1881 6 PD 148, PDA

    SHIPPING — Damage — Law applicable in Case of Collision between British and Foreign Vessel.
    SIR ROBERT PHILLIMORE. This is a case in which it appears that an English vessel, the Harelda, was run down by a Spanish vessel called the Leon on the high seas and was sunk. The owners of the English vessel brought an action of damage in personam against some of the owners of the Spanish vessel resident in this country, and the defence they set up in the 10th paragraph of their statement of defence is:— [His Lordship here read the 10th paragraph of the statement of defence as above set out.] This paragraph is demurred to, and the question

  • In The Goods of Brake

    05 Apr 1881 6 PD 217, PDA

    WILL — Misdescription — Extrinsic Evidence.
    HANNEN, J. In this case the testator appointed two persons his executors, describing one of them as William McCormack, of Canonbury. There was not, in fact, any person of that name, but there was a person named William Abraham McCormack, and the question is, whether extraneous evidence is admissible to shew who was intended by the testator. I am of opinion that it is under proposition V. of Sir James Wigram's Treatise, and in accordance with what is said by Cairns, L.C. in Charter v. Charter: “The Court has a right to ascertain all the facts which were known to

  • Robertson v Robertson

    19 Jul 1881 6 PD 119, CA

    Subsequent considerations : 1 positive. Subsequent citations: 2.
    PRACTICE — Wife's Costs — Limit.
    JESSEL, M.R., said that two questions had been raised on this appeal. The first was of great importance, whether the judgment pronouncing the respondent guilty of adultery was right; the second was whether the costs of the appellant payable by the petitioner were not to exceed the amount for which he had given security. As to the first point, it was a fixed rule that when the judge in the Court below had heard the witnesses, and had come to a conclusion on their evidence, the Court of Appeal only interfered in very peculiar cases. On this point the appeal

  • The Kestrel (1024)

    27 Jun 1881 6 PD 182, DC

    SHIPPING — Shipping casualty appeal — Shipping Casualty Investigations Act, 1879 (42 & 43 Vict. c. 72), s. 2

  • Halfen, Otherwise Boddington v Boddington

    01 Mar 1881 6 PD 13, PDA

    NULLITY — Application by Respondent to make Decree absolute.
    THE PRESIDENT (Sir James Hannen). It is not necessary for me now to express an opinion upon the very difficult question, whether or no a suit can be instituted for a decree of nullity of marriage by the husband in whom the defect is alleged to exist. That may be properly raised before me in a suit for that purpose, but in the present state of things I am of opinion that the respondent is not entitled to have the decree made absolute. His wife, who was the complaining party, obtained a decision in her favour; but before the operative

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