Privy Council Court September 1940 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Canada Rice Mills Ltd. Vs. Union Marine and General Insurance Co., Ltd ...
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Sep-24-1940
Lord Wright: The appellants claimed in this action as assured under a floating policy of marine insurance dated 19th December 1929, upon shipments of rice imported by the appellants to their rice mills in British Columbia, as from time to time declared under the policy. The policy covered (among other risks) perils of the seas, and also, under what are often described as the general words, all other perils, losses and misfortunes that have or shall come to the hurt or damage of the subject-matter of the insurance. The goods were warranted free of particular average under 3 per cent. on each package. The seaworthiness of the ship as between the assured and the assurers was admitted. Under this policy the appellants duly declared a full cargo of 50,600 bags of rice weighing 5080 tons shipped on or about 23rd April 1936, in the motor vessel and at RangoonfortheirdockontheFraserRiver.Thebagswerevaluedinallat$191,922.Includedintheshipmentsodeclaredwere7500bagsofbrownricevaluedat$30,798marke...
Connors Bros. Ltd. and Others Vs. Bernard Connors
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Sep-24-1940
Viscount Maugham: This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada dated 19th December 1938, which (by a majority of three Judges to two) reversed the judgment of the supreme Court of New Brunswick, appellate division. The latter had dismissed an appeal from a judgment of Chief Justice of New Brunswick. The divergence of judicial opinion is striking, since six Judges in Canada were in favour of the present appellants and three-the majority in the Supreme Court of Canada- took the other view. These differences have perhaps been accentuated by the curious shape which the proceedings assumed. The main question has throughout been whether certain covenants entered into by Bernard Connors, the present respondent, with the appellants or any of those covenants are enforceable or whether on the other hand they are unenforceable as being in restraint of trade. This question has been raised not in proceedings instituted by the covenantee to enforce some or one of the covenants, b...
O.Rm. O.M. Sp. Firm Vs. P.L.N.K.M. Nagappa Chettiar and Another
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Sep-17-1940
Sir George Rankin: This appeal arises out of a suit filed on the original side of the High Court at Madras on 29th April 1933, and is brought from the decree of an appellate Bench dated 9th May 1938, Reported in ('38) AIR 1938 Mad 999. reversing a decision of Lakshmana Rao J. dated 27th March 1936, whereby the suit had been dismissed. All the parties to the suit are Nattukottai Chettiars. The appellant is a firm which is known by the letters O. RM. O.M.SP., and which carries on business at Madras as bankers and money-lenders. It was defendant 1 to the suit and it will be conveniently referred to as the appellant bank. The plaintiff Nagappa and his younger brother Lakshmanan were the sons of one Minakshisundaram, whose brother Subrahmanyam, though not an original defendant, was added as defendant 2 to the suit by an order dated 24th January 1934. They were members of a joint Hindu family and had a family business in "piece-goods" (cloth) at Madras and other places-the plaintiff's father...
General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation Ltd., Vs. Janmaho ...
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Sep-17-1940
Viscount Maugham : There are here two consolidated appeals from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in its appellate jurisdiction dated 31st March 1938, confirming with a variation a judgment and decree of that Court in its ordinary original civil jurisdiction. The facts are very complex and the questions raised on the appeals are questions of considerable importance. The appellants however who are the defendants in the suit, besides disputing liability on a number of grounds, have raised the contention that the suit was barred by Art.68, Limitation Act, (9 of 1908). This question was based on substantial grounds and their Lordships thought it right to hear the arguments of both sides upon it before embarking on the other questions raised on the appeal and the cross appeal; and in the result they have come to the conclusion that the point of limitation raised by the appellants is well-founded and accordingly it has not been necessary for them to go into the ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›