Results: 68

  • Price Brothers and Co Ltd v Corpn D’Energie De Montmagny

    18 Jan 1927 [1927] AC 363, PC

    VENDOR AND PURCHASERCanada (quebec)Vendor and Purchaser
  • Bisset v Wilkinson

    20 Jul 1926 [1927] AC 177, PC

    Subsequent considerations : 1 negative. Subsequent citations: 5.
    CONTRACTMisrepresentationVendor and Purchaser
  • Crown Milling Co Ltd, v R

    27 Jan 1927 [1927] AC 394, PC

    COMPETITIONNew zealandMonopoly
  • Owners Of SS Australia v Owners Of Cargo Of SS Nautilus

    11 Jun 1926 [1927] AC 145, HL

    Subsequent citations: 3.
    SHIPPINGCollisionNautical Assessors, Position of.
    June 11. VISCOUNT DUNEDIN. My Lords, the story of the collision which is the origin of this case can be told in a very few words, though the case itself has given rise to a sharp difference of opinion. The ship of the appellants, the Australia, was proceeding up the Scheldt, on January 20, 1923, to Antwerp. The ship of the respondents, the Nautilus, was coming down. It was 8 P.M., and consequently dark. The Scheldt at the place in question forms a sharp turn which may be conveniently likened to the curve of a fish book when laid on
  • Board Of Trade v Cayzer, Irvine and Co Ltd

    31 May 1927 [1927] AC 610, HL

    Subsequent citations: 11.
    LIMITATION OF ACTIONLimitation, statutes ofArbitration
  • Salvesen v Administrator of Austrian Property

    27 May 1927 [1927] AC 641, HL

    Subsequent considerations : 1 neutral. Subsequent citations: 14.
    INTERNATIONAL LAWHusband and WifeNullity of Marriage
  • Owners Of SS Artemisia v Owners Of SS Douglas (Note)

    24 Jul 1925 [1927] AC 164, HL

    Hill J., after taking advice from the Elder Brethren, held that the Douglas was alone to blame for the collision. The Court of Appeal (Bankes, Atkin and Sargant L.JJ.), on the advice of their assessors, held (1.) that the Artemisia ought to have stopped and reversed her engines sooner than she did, and (2.) that the master of the Douglas, believing that the Artemisia was stationary, was not guilty of negligence in crossing ahead of the Artemisia, as he would naturally conclude that the Artemisia would make room for the vessel coming out of the dock. They therefore held the
  • Hontestroom, The

    20 Jul 1926 [1927] AC 37, HL

    Subsequent considerations : 2 positive. Subsequent citations: 24.
    SHIPPINGCollisionEvidence
  • Kojo Pan v Atta Fua

    05 May 1927 [1927] AC 693, PC

    Subsequent considerations : 1 neutral.
    COLONYGold coast colonyProcedure
  • Niddrie and Benhar Coal Co Ltd v Dee

    03 Dec 1926 [1927] AC 299, HL

    EMPLOYMENTWorkmen's compensationDispute as to Incapacity

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