Skip to Search Facets Skip to Results
Full Search Search Help

Results: 88

  • Davis v Spence

    20 Jun 1876 1 CPD 719, DC

    PRACTICE — Leave to sign Judgment under Order XIV, Rule 3 — Affidavit in Reply to Defendant's Answer.
    BRETT, J. I think there should be no rule. The construction of Order XIV, Rule 1, seems to me to be perfectly clear. It is in effect adopting the machinery given by the Bills of Exchange Act, 1857. The argument of Mr. Gibbons is, that, the plaintiff having by his affidavit made out a primâ facie case, which is met by counter-statements by the defendant, it was not competent to the judge to allow an affidavit in reply. The rule he relies on consists of two parts: by the first part, the plaintiff is to shew a primâ facie case

  • Cory v Bristow

    26 Apr 1875 LR 10 CP 504, DC

    11 Dec 1875 1 CPD 54, CA

    Subsequent citations: 1.
    POOR — Poor rate — Rateability of Moorings in the River Thames

  • Bailey v Jamieson

    26 Jan 1876 1 CPD 329, DC

    Subsequent citations: 1.
    HIGHWAY — Access becoming impossible.
    LORD COLERIDGE, C.J. The question in this case is now, as far as I know, raised for the first time. It is not doubted that the stopping of the roads by the orders of the quarter sessions was a proper act. Those orders were not appealed from. But it is said that an unexpected consequence has followed from that stoppage, and that raises the question which we have to determine. We must take it that the roads so stopped formerly opened into another road which was not in terms stopped by the justices. But, the access to both ends of

  • Grant v The Banque Franco-Egyptienne

    11 Feb 1876 1 CPD 143, CA

    PRACTICE — Appeal — Security for Costs

  • Hargreaves v Hopper

    16 Nov 1875 1 CPD 195, DC (Lord Coleridge CJ, Grove and Archibald JJ)

    PARLIAMENT — County Vote — “Full Age”

  • Rourke v The White Moss Colliery Co

    26 Jun 1876 1 CPD 556, DC

    26 Jan 1877 2 CPD 205, CA

    Subsequent citations: 2.
    MASTER AND SERVANT — A. not liable for the Negligence of his Servant while employed under the Control of B.
    COCKBURN, C.J. I am of opinion that the judgment of the Common Pleas Division should be affirmed. My mind has fluctuated during the argument; but I have been led to the opinion I have formed by the answers given to the interrogatories by the managing director of the defendant company. It is quite unnecessary to say whether the case of Wiggett v. Fox, which was relied on for the defendants, was rightly decided. My own view is that it was not; though I might agree with the decision if I could come to the conclusion that the facts were what

  • Williams v Bolland

    15 Feb 1876 1 CPD 227, DC

    PRACTICE — Removal of a Judgment from an inferior to a superior Court, under 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, s. 22.
    BRETT, J. When a judgment is removed from an inferior to a superior Court under this statute, it is only for the purpose of enabling the superior Court to execute the judgment. No jurisdiction is given to the superior Court to inquire into the merits or into the regularity of the proceedings in the court below. The case of Sims v. Count de Wints is precisely in point, and was correctly decided. My Brother Denman, therefore, had no power to make the order in question, and it must be set aside. The appeal before us being successful, according to the

  • Newton v Sherry

    26 Feb 1876 1 CPD 246, DC

    Subsequent considerations : 1 positive. Subsequent citations: 2.
    EXECUTOR AND ADMINISTRATOR — Executors and administrators — Notice to Creditors and Others to make their Claims, under 22 & 23 Vict. c. 35, s. 29

  • Tribe v Taylor

    25 Apr 1876 1 CPD 505, DC

    PRINCIPAL AND AGENT — Agent's Right to Commission — Effect of Admissions at the Trial.
    LORD COLERIDGE, C.J. I do not feel quite free from doubt: but, upon the whole, I am of opinion that the verdict must be entered for the defendant. The question turns upon the construction of the letter of the 10th of June, 1873. The defendant being desirous of increasing his business capital, writes as follows:— “In case of your introducing a purchaser of all the premises, or part of them, of whom I shall approve, or in case of your introducing capital, which I should accept, I could pay you a commission of 5 per cent. on the amount in

  • Evans v Wills

    25 Mar 1876 1 CPD 229, DC

    COUNTY COURT — Commitment under Debtors Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 62) s. 5 — Prohibition

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