Results: 145

  • Murray v Clayton (No 3)

    03 Mar 1875 LR 10 Ch App 675, CA

  • Batstone v Salter

    10 Dec 1874 LR 19 Eq 250, Equity

    28 May 1875 LR 10 Ch App 431, DC

    TRUSTSAdvancementTransfer of Stock into joint Names of Transferor, her Daughter and her Daughter's Husband.
    LORD CAIRNS, L.C.:— I am not able to arrive at a conclusion different from that of the Vice-Chancellor. The transfer in this case was made by Mrs. Wakeford in September, 1864. It appears that about a year previously the Defendant Salter had married a daughter of Mrs. Wakeford. The way in which Mrs. Wakeford, herself had become entitled to the fund is somewhat singular. The stock had, during the life of her husband, been transferred by him into the joint names of himself and his wife, and she having survived him had become absolutely entitled to it by survivorship. So
  • Ex parte Jones, In re Jones (No 3)

    05 Aug 1875 LR 10 Ch App 663, DC

    EXECUTIONExecution creditorResolution for Composition
  • Panama and South Pacific Telegraph Co v India Rubber, Gutta Percha, and Telegraph Works

    27 Apr 1875 LR 10 Ch App 515, DC

    Subsequent considerations : 1 positive; 1 neutral; 1 negative. Subsequent citations: 14.
    CONTRACTRescinding contractFraud
  • Wilcocks v Carter

    20 Apr 1875 LR 10 Ch App 440, DC

    INJUNCTIONCourt of ProbateGrant of Administration
  • Ex parte Osborne, In re Goldsmith

    06 Nov 1874 LR 10 Ch App 41, DC

    BUILDING SOCIETYBenefit building societyMortgage
  • In re Morris’s Estate; Morris v Morris

    16 Nov 1874 LR 10 Ch App 68, DC

    WILLRetainer by executorDebt not yet ascertained
  • In re Lord Arden’s Estates

    03 May 1875 LR 10 Ch App 445, DC

    PRACTICELands Clauses ActFunds dealt with in different Branches of the Court.
    The LORDS JUSTICES granted permission to present one Petition in both matters in Vice-Chancellor Hall's Court.
  • In re Wear Engine Works Co

    16 Jan 1875 LR 10 Ch App 188, DC

    COMPANYWining-upCompany
  • Williams v Guest

    11 Jun 1875 LR 10 Ch App 467, DC

    PRACTICEAppeal from Order directing IssuesDiscretion of Court.
    SIR W. M. JAMES, L.J.:— We cannot treat this objection as a preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the Court. The Defendants may be able to shew that the Plaintiffs had no evidence to go to a jury. They may shew that it was not a case for the exercise of any discretion at all on the part of the Judge; but that the bill ought to have been dismissed at once. That would be good ground for an appeal. SIR G. MELLISH, L.J.:— I think that it is not correct to say that an appeal does not lie from

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