Results: 77

  • Attorney-General v Dean and Canons Of Manchester

    22 Jun 1881 18 ChD 596, Ch D

    EDUCATIONCollegiate bodySurplus Revenues to be paid to Ecclesiastical Commissioners for Administration
  • In Re Silver Valley Mines (No 1)

    02 Aug 1881 18 ChD 472, CA

    COMPANYBusiness never commencedWinding-up
  • Bainbrigge v Browne

    19 May 1881 18 ChD 188, Ch D

    Subsequent considerations : 1 positive; 2 neutral. Subsequent citations: 20.
    UNDUE INFLUENCEFather and ChildDeed executed by Child in favour of Father
  • In Re Hopkins; Williams v Hopkins

    29 Jun 1881 18 ChD 370, CA

    ADMINISTRATIONProof by Secured CreditorJudicature Act, 1875, s. 10
  • Otto v Lindford

    03 Aug 1881 18 ChD 394, CA

    Subsequent citations: 1.
    PRACTICEAppealStaying Proceedings
  • In Re Birmingham and Lichfield Junction Railway Co

    28 May 1881 18 ChD 155, Ch D

    RAILWAYRailway companyAbandonment
  • In Re Bywater; Bywater v Clarke

    13 Apr 1881 18 ChD 17, CA

    WILLInconsistent ClausesDirection as to Time of Payment inconsistent with prior Gift.
    JESSEL, M.R.:— To my mind this is a clear case. If I were compelled to resort to the rule of thumb, as I sometimes call it, that where there are two inconsistent clauses the latter shall prevail, that would give the applicant what she asks for. But I think the case may be decided without resorting to that extreme rule. The testator begins by giving to his wife during widowhood and until all his four daughters by his late wife shall attain twenty-one or die under that age, an annuity of £800, and in respect of each of such daughters
  • Dearsly v Middleweek

    30 Jun 1881 18 ChD 236, Ch D

    COSTSCo-DefendantsContribution.
    FRY, J.:— This is an application for which there appears to be no precedent, and I shall not make one. I shall follow the dictum which has been cited to me from the Court of Appeal in Real and Personal Advance Company v. McCarthy, and hold that a defendant cannot proceed against a co-defendant for contribution in respect of costs to which both are equally liable.
  • Ex Parte Harrison, In Re Betts

    30 Jun 1881 18 ChD 127, CA

    MORTGAGEAttornment clauseDistress
  • Ex Parte Jones, In Re Jones (No 4)

    23 Jun 1881 18 ChD 109, CA

    Subsequent considerations : 1 negative.
    BANKRUPTCYAdjudication of BankruptcyInfant

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