Results: 66

  • Pierpoint v Cartwright

    05 Mar 1880 5 CPD 139, DC

    COUNTY COURTAppealJudge's Note
  • James v Howarth

    20 Nov 1879 5 CPD 225, DC

    PARLIAMENTBorough VoteNotice of Objection
  • 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 Medwin

    26 Feb 1880 5 CPD 87, DC

    PARLIAMENTBorough VoteQualification
  • Chesworth v Hunt Harrison, Claimant

    06 May 1880 5 CPD 266, DC

    BILL OF SALEConsolidation of Mortgage withExecution Creditor
  • Chapman v Knight

    08 Apr 1880 5 CPD 308, DC

    BILL OF SALEBy Equitable OwnerPrior Unregistered Bill of Sale
  • Burke v The South Eastern Railway Co

    26 Nov 1879 5 CPD 1, DC

    RAILWAYRailway companyContinental Ticket
  • Collins v Welch

    18 Dec 1879 5 CPD 27, CA

    PRACTICECostsPower of Judge at Nisi Prius, without Application, to disallow Plaintiff's Costs
  • Hamlyn v Betteley

    17 Mar 1880 5 CPD 327, DC

    BILL OF SALEStatement of ConsiderationBills of Sale Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. c. 31), s. 8.
    DENMAN, J. I am inclined to think I was a little too hasty in ruling at the trial that the consideration for this bill of sale was not truly set forth. If there had been a wilful misdescription of the transaction, I do not say that this would have been a true setting forth of the consideration. But I think the evidence did not disclose anything of that sort. The sum stated, 182l. 3s., was truly advanced: and the mere fact that Evans, who acted as the grantor's solicitor, received part of the money in discharge of a debt due
  • Johnson v Rankin

    26 Jun 1880 5 CPD 553, DC

    ELECTIONParliamentary electionsWithdrawal of Petition

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