Results: 80

  • In Re Terry and White’s Contract

    15 Feb 1886 32 ChD 14, CA

    VENDOR AND PURCHASERConditions of SaleParticulars
  • In Re Tillett; Field V Lydall

    27 May 1886 32 ChD 639, Ch D

    PRACTICEJudicature act, 1873 (36 & 37 vict. c. 66), s. 24, sub-s. 7 [revised ed. statutes vol. xvii. p. 77]Jurisdiction
  • Pease v Pattinson

    09 Feb 1886 32 ChD 154, Ch D

    Subsequent citations: 1.
    CHARITYFriendly SocietyCy-près
  • In Re Dean; Ward v Holmes

    24 Mar 1886 32 ChD 209, Ch D

    PRACTICECostsAttempted Ineffectual Sale by Trustees
  • In Re Duke Of Marlborough’s Settlement; Duke Of Marlborough v Marjoribanks

    18 Jun 1885 30 ChD 127, Ch D

    15 Feb 1886 32 ChD 1, CA

    SETTLED LANDSettled land act, 1882 (45 & 46 vict. c. 38), ss. 21, subs. ii., 22, 37, 53Heirlooms
  • Bygrave v Metropolitan Board Of Works

    17 Mar 1886 32 ChD 147, CA

    VENDOR AND PURCHASERSpecific performancePublic Undertaking
  • In Re Currey; Gibson v Way

    30 Mar 1886 32 ChD 361, Ch D

    SETTLEMENTAfter-acquired propertyRestraint on Anticipation.
    CHITTY, J.:— The question is whether the shares of the two married ladies in the residuary personal estate of the testator ought to be transferred to them by the trustees of Dr. Currey in the face of the declaration which is contained in the will itself as to restraint on anticipation. The testator gives the residue of his real and personal estate to his daughters, the two married ladies, in equal shares, and then declares that “Every gift hereby made to or for the benefit of either of my said daughters shall be for her separate use, independently of any
  • In Re Ruthin and Cerrig-Y-Druidion Railway Act

    20 May 1886 32 ChD 438, CA

    RAILWAYRailway companyAbandonment
  • Jenner-Fust v Needham

    13 Feb 1886 31 ChD 500, Ch D

    04 May 1886 32 ChD 582, CA

    MORTGAGEForeclosureReceipt of Rents by Receiver between Date of Certificate and Day fixed for Redemption.
    COTTON, L.J.:— We are of opinion that there is no probability of redemption, and we therefore think that the 4th of June is a reasonable date to fix for redemption. We think, however, that the receiver should make a further affidavit, stating that he has received no subsequent rents; and that if he cannot do so the matter must come before the Court again. We cannot allow the mortgagees the subsequent interest up to the 4th of June, one of the terms upon which the reference to Chambers was waived being that they should forego their claim to such interest.
  • In Re Allingham

    24 Mar 1886 32 ChD 36, CA

    SOLICITORTaxation of BillBankruptcy

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