Results: 67

  • Bethell, In re, Bethell v Hildyard

    15 Feb 1888 38 ChD 220, Ch D

    Subsequent considerations : 1 negative. Subsequent citations: 4.
    MARRIAGEEnglish domicilMarriage in Bechuanaland according to the Customs of a Native Tribe
  • Republic Of Peru v Dreyfus Brothers & Co

    20 Feb 1888 38 ChD 348, Ch D

    Subsequent citations: 1.
    CONFLICT OF LAWSForeign governmentInternational Law
  • In Re Hyatt; Bowles v Hyatt

    16 Apr 1888 38 ChD 609, Ch D

    MORTGAGEMortgagor and MortgageeExecutor
  • Gosnell v Bishop

    08 Feb 1888 38 ChD 385, Ch D

    COSTSCosts of motionTrial
  • Marshall v Marshall (No 2)

    25 Apr 1888 38 ChD 330, CA

    Subsequent citations: 1.
    PRACTICEService Out of the JurisdictionInjunction.
    COTTON, L.J.:— If an injunction were granted by an English Court that Court could not enforce it against the defendant himself, but only against his servants and agents in England, who are not the persons primarily responsible. On the other hand, a Scotch Court could enforce its orders against the defendant himself, and this being so, I think that there is no sufficient reason for withdrawing the case from the Scotch Courts. The application will therefore be refused. FRY, L.J., concurred.
  • Bridgetown Waterworks Co v Barbados Water Supply Co

    20 Apr 1888 38 ChD 378, Ch D

    PRACTICEPleading Matter since WritRules of Supreme Court, 1883, Order XXIV., r. 3
  • Davies v Davies (No3)

    10 Feb 1888 38 ChD 499, Ch D

    LEASELease by tenant for lifeSettled Estates Act, 1877
  • Millar v Harper

    07 Mar 1888 38 ChD 110, CA

    Subsequent citations: 1.
    PRACTICEParticulars of DemandDiscovery.
    COTTON, L.J.:— I am of opinion that this appeal is wrong. The Defendant must know of his own knowledge what furniture his wife had, the Plaintiffs, being only executors, cannot be supposed to have any such knowledge. The Plaintiffs put forward by their statement of claim a right to a certain class of articles, but cannot identity them. It may be right that before trial they should give particulars, but I think that their giving them ought to be postponed till the Defendant has given discovery. Where the Plaintiffs are executors who do not know, and the Defendant a person
  • In Re Brough; Currey v Brough

    09 Feb 1888 38 ChD 456, Ch D

    WILLRevocationSpecial Power of Appointment
  • In Re Fryman’s Estate; Fryman v Fryman

    24 Apr 1888 38 ChD 468, Ch D

    BANKRUPTCYBankruptcy act, 1883, ss. 42, 125Administration

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