Results: 67

  • Burke v Rooney

    08 Apr 1879 4 CPD 226, DC

    Subsequent citations: 1.
    PRACTICEExtension of Time limited by the Order of a Judge or Master for doing an ActOrder LIV, r. 4, and Order LVII, r. 6
  • Carey v Barrett

    30 May 1879 4 CPD 379, DC

    DEBTDebtor and creditorComposition Agreement, Construction of
  • Crowle v Russell

    11 Nov 1878 4 CPD 186, CA

    PRACTICEProcedureStay of Proceedings
  • Ex Parte Alice Cockerell

    21 Nov 1878 4 CPD 39, DC

    VENDOR AND PURCHASERConveyance by married woman3 & 4 Wm. 4, c. 74, s. 91, and 20 & 21 Vict. c. 57, s. 1
  • Button v O’Neill

    22 Mar 1879 4 CPD 354, CA

    BILL OF SALEBills of sale act, 1854 (17 & 18 vict. c. 36), s. 1Affidavit
  • Smith v Wilson

    02 Aug 1879 4 CPD 392, DC

    11 Nov 1879 5 CPD 25, CA

    PRACTICEWrit of Summons, Special Indorsement on, under Order III., rule 6Judgment signing, under Order XIV., rule 1.
    JESSEL, M.R. I must say that this is a frivolous appeal. Rule 6, of Order III. requires that the indorsement shall contain the particulars of the amount sought to be recovered. Its object is well stated by Cockburn, C.J. in Walker v. Hicks: “The defendant is entitled to have sufficient particulars to enable him to satisfy his mind whether he ought to pay or resist,” and Mellor, J., also in that case, says: “Before the plaintiff can ask for final judgment, the defendant ought to have afforded to him, by the indorsement of reasonably specific particulars of claim on the
  • Foster v Wright

    03 Jul 1878 4 CPD 438, DC

    FISHERYSeveral fisheryRiver
  • Johnson v Palmer

    29 Apr 1879 4 CPD 258, DC

    PRACTICECounty CourtRemitted Action
  • Turner v Heyland

    19 Jun 1879 4 CPD 432, DC

    PRACTICECostsPower of Judge, without Application, to disallow Costs at Trial
  • Hill v Wilson

    29 Mar 1879 4 CPD 329, CP

    SHIPPINGAverage Adjustment at a Port of RefugePro Ratâ Freight.
    March 29. LINDLEY, J., after stating the facts at ante, p. 329, delivered judgment as follows:— It thus appears that the ship with part of her original cargo on board arrived in Hull, the original port of discharge, and that the defendants received the original full bill of lading freight for such cargo, except for that part of it which belonged to themselves and paid no freight. A long correspondence was put in evidence, and was referred to; and I have read the whole of it. That correspondence and the defendants' answers to the plaintiffs' interrogatories shew, — 1. that

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