Skip to Search Facets Skip to Results
Full Search Search Help

Results: 105

  • Doucet v Geoghegan

    28 Jun 1878 9 ChD 441, CA

    Subsequent citations: 2.
    CONFLICT OF LAWS — Domicil — Change of Original Domicil

  • Attorney-General v Swansea Improvements and Tramways Co

    24 Jul 1878 9 ChD 46, CA

    PRACTICE — Staying Proceedings pending Appeal — Jurisdiction of Court of Appeal

  • Parnall v Parnall

    24 Jul 1878 9 ChD 96, Ch D

    WILL — Absolute Interest — Precatory Trust.
    MALINS, V.C.:— In this case there is no precatory trust, for there is not a definite gift over as there was in Le Marchant v. Le Marchant, and there is no obligation here for the widow to possess anything at her death. In order to create a trust which can be carried into execution there must be a definite subject-matter. Here the widow has a right to spend the whole of the property, and so there can be no trust affecting it. This is the principle on which all the cases cited from Attorney-General v. Hall to Cowman v. Harrison

  • Lancaster Banking Co v Cooper

    26 Jul 1878 9 ChD 594, Ch D

    FORECLOSURE — Foreclosure action — Judgment for Sale against alleged Heir-at-Law of Intestate Mortgagor

  • Pelling v Goddard

    28 Mar 1878 9 ChD 185, Ch D

    TRUSTEE — Trustee relief act (10 & 11 vict. c. 96), s. 2 — Payment Out

  • In Re Wincham Shipbuilding, Boiler, and Salt Co; Poole, Jackson and White’s case

    29 May 1878 9 ChD 322, CA

    Subsequent citations: 2.
    COMPANY — Winding-up — Contributory

  • Powell v Jewesbury

    05 Jun 1878 9 ChD 34, CA

    Subsequent citations: 1.
    PRACTICE — Demurrer to amended statement of claim — Partial Demurrer.
    MALINS, V.C.:— I must order the benefit of this demurrer to be reserved to the hearing. I think the Court ought to discourage demurrers to parts of statements of claim where the whole matter ought to be disposed of, and so multiplying the hearings, instead of diminishing them by having the case disposed of once for all. Nothing can be more inconvenient and more detrimental to the administration of justice than multiplying proceedings by demurring to part of the relief prayed by the claim. First, I am told that the Defendant demurs to the 3rd paragraph of the prayer, then

  • Horrocks v Rigby

    27 Mar 1878 9 ChD 180, Ch D

    Subsequent citations: 2.
    VENDOR AND PURCHASER — Specific performance — Vendor entitled to Part only.
    FRY, J., after stating the facts of the case, continued:— The Plaintiff is, therefore, incumbered with several difficulties in respect of this contract. In the first place, he has entered into a contract with two persons as tenants in common for the sale of the entirety. It is found that one of those supposed tenants in common has no interest whatever in the property, and the question then is, whether the Plaintiff can enforce against the other a conveyance so far as it relates to his moiety. In my opinion the Plaintiff can enforce it. I think that where an

  • Gee v Mahood

    20 Jun 1878 9 ChD 151, Ch D

    16 May 1879 11 ChD 891, CA

    WILL — Annuity — Corpus or Income

  • Latimer v Aylesbury and Buckingham Railway Co

    06 Aug 1878 9 ChD 385, CA

    SALE OF GOODS — Vendor's lien against railway company — Motion for Injunction and Receiver before Judgment.
    JAMES, L.J.:— The decision in Pell v. Northampton and Banbury Railway Company, where an injunction before decree was refused, is binding upon us, and it appears to me to be a correct decision. No doubt the company has taken the Plaintiff's land and has not paid for it, but that does not enable us to make this order. If the Plaintiff is entitled to judgment in the action he will get judgment at the hearing; but this application for an injunction and receiver is wrong. An interlocutory application to restrain a railway company from running their trains is monstrous. Then,

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