Results: 57

  • Colley v Hart

    19 Feb 1890 44 ChD 179, Ch D

    PATENTAction to restrain Threats of Legal Proceedings for InfringementAction for Infringement
  • In Re Crown Bank

    01 May 1890 44 ChD 649, Ch D

    Subsequent citations: 4.
    CONTEMPT OF COURTNewspaper comments on pending ProceedingsFine.
    May 1. NORTH, J. (after stating the nature of the motion, reading the paragraph that appeared in the Star of the 21st of April, parts of the paragraphs that appeared on the 22nd and 23rd of January, and so much of the Respondent's affidavit as is set out above, continued):— No one can read the paragraphs that appeared in the Star previously to the presentation of the petition without seeing that the editor was put in motion by the Applicant, and that he was not expressing the independent opinion of an impartial newspaper, but was taking a part which he
  • Reilly v Booth

    07 Feb 1890 44 ChD 12, CA

    Subsequent citations: 3.
    EASEMENTExclusive Use of GatewayAbsolute Ownership.
    KEKEWICH, J.:— To my mind all the evidence I have heard to-day, and all of it has been of an extremely thin character, is wholly unnecessary, because I think the Plaintiffs' position is wrong on the construction of the deed of July, 1839. It was because I thought the decision must turn upon that ultimately that I pressed Mr. Barber to throw his weight into the words of the deed, and give me all the assistance he could in ascertaining what was the meaning of the language. I then pointed out to him that the first thing to ascertain was,
  • Tucker v New Brunswick Trading Co of London

    02 Apr 1890 44 Ch D 249; 44 ChD 249, CA

    Subsequent considerations : 1 positive; 1 neutral. Subsequent citations: 7.
    PRACTICEInjunctionUndertaking as to damages.
    COTTON, L.J.:— This is an appeal under unusual circumstances. The Plaintiff applied for an injunction against the company, which was granted on the terms of the Plaintiff giving the usual undertaking as to damages. The company and Matthews appeared at the hearing of the motion. When the discussion was at an end, counsel for Matthews asked for the usual undertaking as to damages, and the Plaintiff's counsel said it would of course be given. The order was passed and entered with an undertaking only as to damages that might be incurred by the company. I think this was wrong. Counsel
  • Sibun v Pearce

    27 Mar 1890 44 ChD 354, CA

    BUILDING SOCIETYDeed of DissolutionStatutory Majority of Members
  • In Re Rees; Williams v Davies

    12 Feb 1890 44 ChD 484, Ch D

    WILLConstructionLegacy
  • In Re Blundell; Blundell v Blundell (No 2)

    05 Feb 1890 44 ChD 1, CA

    ADMINISTRATIONCostsIndemnity against Costs.
    NORTH, J.:— In my opinion the present claim cannot be supported. Blundell's estate is being administered in the action of Blundell v. Blundell. For some reason which I do not know the conduct has been taken away from the Plaintiffs and given to the Bavarian Brewery Company, who have had it down to the present time. In the course of the administration the parties having the conduct seem to have thought that a claim might be successfully made against Messrs. Bower & Company, the solicitors, and they applied to the Court for leave and got leave of the Court to
  • Baird v Wells

    07 Mar 1890 44 ChD 661, Ch D

    Subsequent citations: 1.
    CLUBProprietary clubMember no right of Property
  • In Re Baker; Nichols v Baker

    12 Mar 1890 44 ChD 262, CA

    Subsequent citations: 6.
    ADMINISTRATIONAdministration of insolvent estateTransfer from Chancery Division to Court of Bankruptcy
  • Phillips v Homfray (No 2)

    23 Apr 1890 44 ChD 694, Ch D

    MINESMinerals wrongfully takenCompensation, Interest on

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