Results: 86

  • Ex Parte Bath

    20 Jun 1884 27 ChD 509, CA

    BANKRUPTCYProof in bankruptcyLoan from Building Society
  • In Re Dames and Wood

    13 Jun 1884 27 ChD 172, Ch D

    01 May 1885 29 ChD 626, CA

    VENDOR AND PURCHASERConditions of SaleRight to Rescind.
    COTTON, L.J.:— This is an appeal from the judgment of Vice-Chancellor Bacon upon a summons taken out under the Vendor and Purchaser Act, whereby his Lordship decided that the purchasers were not entitled to insist on their contract, because, having regard to what passed between the parties, the vendor had properly exercised a power of rescinding the contract, which had been given to him by one of the conditions of sale. The condition in question (which was the 11th) was, so far as material, as follows: “If the purchaser shall take any objection or make any requisition as to the
  • In Re Cooper; Cooper v Slight

    20 Jun 1884 27 ChD 565, Ch D

    WILLLife InterestInfant Residuary Legatee
  • In Re Donaldson

    26 Jul 1884 27 ChD 544, Ch D

    COSTSTaxationMortgage
  • Taylor v Pilsen Joel and General Electric Light Co

    09 May 1884 27 ChD 268, Ch D

    COMPANYPurchase by company of its own sharesReduction of Capital
  • In Re Dove; Bousfield v Dove

    29 Jul 1884 27 ChD 687, Ch D

    BANKRUPTCYBankruptCertificate of Conformity
  • Barnes v Southsea Railway Co

    28 Jun 1884 27 ChD 536, Ch D

    Subsequent citations: 1.
    RAILWAYRailway companyNotice to treat
  • Clapham v Andrews

    21 Jun 1884 27 ChD 679, Ch D

    MORTGAGEMortgagor and mortgages of two estatesForeclosure Action
  • In Re Portal and Lamb

    12 Aug 1884 27 ChD 600, Ch D

    04 Jul 1885 30 ChD 50, CA

    WILLSpecific Devise of “my cottage and all my land at S.” “in their present state”Residuary Devise
  • Clement v Cheesman

    30 Jul 1884 27 ChD 631, Ch D

    GIFTDonatio mortis causâCheque payable to Donor or Order.
    CHITTY, J.:— I have no doubt about this case. The subject-matter was not the testator's own cheque, but was his property, being the cheque of another man, which he had taken for value. In Byles on Bills it is stated that a cheque drawn by the donor upon his own banker cannot be the subject of a donatio mortis causâ, because the death of the drawer is a revocation of the banker's authority to pay. But when the donor is dealing with the cheque of another man it stands entirely on the same footing as a bill of exchange or

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