Skip to Search Facets Skip to Results
Full Search Search Help

Results: 105

  • Hall v The Mayor of Bristol

    19 Jan 1867 LR 2 CP 322, CP

    PUBLIC HEALTH — Public health act, 1848 (11 & 12 vict. c. 63), s. 144 — Damage.
    KEATING, J. This is a case in which an action was brought on an award, giving the plaintiff compensation under the 144th section of the Public Health Act, 1848 (11 & 12 Vict. c. 63), and the present rule was granted on the ground that the judge had misdirected the jury by telling them, in effect, that damage in that section means actionable damage. I am of opinion that the judge was right in his direction. No doubt there is a distinction between the wording of this act and that of s. 68 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, since

  • Armitage v Jessop

    15 Nov 1866 LR 2 CP 12, CP

    COSTS — Execution, Expenses of — Debt recoverable in County Court

  • Imhof v Sutton

    25 Jan 1867 LR 2 CP 406, CP

    ARBITRATION — Compulsory Reference under the Common Law Procedure Act, 1854, s. 3 — Charge of Fraud.
    BOVILL, C.J. The particulars of demand disclose a claim made by the plaintiffs against the defendant of a balance of 636l. 13s. upon an account consisting of numerous items for goods sold and moneys lent, with credit given on the opposite side for goods returned. Part of the claim, and a considerable part of it, viz. 514l., is made up of five items, which are charged as “money had and received for the use of the plaintiffs, being commission paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant for orders for musical instruments which the defendant alleged he had obtained, but which

  • The Free Fishers Of Whitstable v Foreman

    08 Jun 1867 LR 2 CP 688, CP

    19 Jun 1868 LR 3 CP 578, Ex Ct

    PRESCRIPTION — Anchorage-due, what will sustain a Claim for — Antient Port.
    June 19. The judgment of the majority of the Court (Kelly, C.B., Channell, B., Blackburn and Mellor, JJ.), was delivered by KELLY, C.B. This is a special case stated for the purpose of raising the question whether the plaintiffs are entitled to an anchorage-toll of 1s. in respect of each vessel anchoring or taking ground below low-water mark in the anchorage-ground at Whitstable. A claim to a similar toll in respect of vessels coming into the railway harbour was abandoned in the court below. In a former action, – Gann v. Free Fishers of Whitstable, – brought by the now

  • Brown v Bateman

    18 Jan 1867 LR 2 CP 272, CP

    Subsequent citations: 2.
    DEBT — Debtor and creditor — Building Contract, Construction of

  • Indermaur v Dames

    26 Feb 1866 LR 1 CP 274, CP (Erle CJ, Willes, Keating, Montague Smith JJ)

    06 Feb 1867 LR 2 CP 311, Ex Ch (Kelly CB, Channell B, Blackburn, Mellor JJ, Pigott B)

    Subsequent citations: 7.
    NEGLIGENCE — Unfenced Hole on Defendant's Premises.
    KELLY, C.B. In this case we are of opinion that the verdict of the jury ought not to be set aside, nor the judgment of the Court below disturbed. The grounds of that decision are well stated by Willes, J., in delivering the judgment of the Court; after referring to the facts of the case, and the arguments that had been used, he proceeds: “We think that argument (that the plaintiff was a bare licensee) fails, because the capacity in which the plaintiff was there was that of a person on lawful business, in the course of fulfilling a contract,

  • Nash v Dickenson

    29 Jan 1867 LR 2 CP 252, CP

    Subsequent considerations : 1 positive. Subsequent citations: 1.
    SHERIFF — Poundage and Fees — What amounts to a Levy under a Writ of fi. fa.
    BOVILL, C.J. I think the facts fail to shew a seizure under the writ. The sheriff should make an actual seizure. It would be imposing a serious responsibility upon him, if what was done here were held to be a seizure of all the goods upon the premises. Without saying what is a seizure, it is sufficient to say that there has not been enough done here to constitute a seizure. In all the cases of arrest upon a ca. sa., some act has been done towards the restraint of the person of the defendant. WILLES, KEATING, and MONTAGUE SMITH,

  • Catterall v Hindle

    12 Jan 1866 LR 1 CP 186, CP

    06 Feb 1867 LR 2 CP 368, Ex Ct

    AGENCY — Principal and, agent — Payment

  • Woodger v The Great Western Railway Co

    26 Jan 1867 LR 2 CP 318, CP

    CARRIER — Delay in delivering Goods — Remoteness of Damage

  • Downing v Capel

    01 May 1867 LR 2 CP 461, CP

    Subsequent citations: 1.
    CRIME — Notice of action — “Found Committing”

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