Centralized - Judgment Search Results

Central R. Co. of New Jersey Vs. Jersey City

Court: US Supreme Court

..... by both the parties concerned ferguson v ross 126 n y 459 463 people v central r co 42 n y 283 this opinion is confirmed by the judgment delivered by ..... co of new jersey v jersey city 209 u s 473 1908 central railroad company of new jersey v jersey city no 203 argued april 15 16 1908 .....

In Re: Abdul Kadir Saheb

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1107a

..... after commitment illegality criminal procedure code act v of 1893 sections 532 and 537 central excise act 1944 c a no 1 1944 section 11 p ..... instant case in the absence of specific provision of first charge in central excise act as well as customs act generally the dues to ..... case in the absence of specific provision of first charge in central excise act as well as customs act generally the dues to .....

Dibakar Bisi Vs. Chatto Bag

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.672

..... by a suit in the civil court under section 83 of the central provinces land revenue act xviii of 1881 the plaintiff has appealed ..... i am of opinion that this contention is correct section82 of the central provinces land revenue act xviii of 1881 enacts that when the ..... appeal the costs of the courts below shall abide the ultimate result central provinces land revenue act xviii of 1881 sections 78 82 83 .....

Wabash R. Co. Vs. Adelbert College

Court: US Supreme Court

..... company executed in 1880 a mortgage on its property to the central trust company of new york and james cheney for 50 000 ..... were appointed qualified and took possession of the property thereafter the central trust company and cheney began proceedings in several state courts for ..... which any of the parties in the consolidated cause of the central trust company of new york and others against the wabash st .....

Harriman Vs. Icc

Court: US Supreme Court

..... union pacific in july 1906 purchased 90 000 shares of illinois central railroad stock from messrs rogers stillman and the witness he was ..... the union pacific had bought a large amount of new york central railroad stock the witness was asked whether any of the directors ..... various forms whether the before mentioned 105 000 shares of illinois central stock or any part of them really belonged to or were .....

Louisville and Nashville R. Co. Vs. Mottley

Court: US Supreme Court

..... watertown 128 u s 286 and has since been repeated and applied in colorado central consolidating mining company v turck 150 u s 138 150 u s 142 ..... suburban railway company v lewis 173 u s 457 173 u s 460 florida central peninsular railroad company v bell 176 u s 321 176 u s 327 ..... houston texas central railroad company v texas 177 u s 66 177 u s 78 arkansas .....

Venner Vs. Great Northern Ry. Co.

Court: US Supreme Court

..... co 147 u s 500 smith v mckay 161 u s 355 mexican central railway co v eckman 187 u s 429 hennessy v page 209 u ..... purposes be regarded otherwise than as a defendant davenport v dows 18 wall 626 central railroad company v mills 113 u s 249 railroad v grayson 119 u ..... 120 u s 241 this very question was considered by the court in illinois central railroad company v adams 180 u s 28 where it said p 180 .....

In Re Moore

Court: US Supreme Court

..... it is contended that the supreme court of the state sitting in the central grand division could not except by consent entertain jurisdiction of those appeals and ..... cited see also southern pacific company v denton 146 u s 202 in central trust co v mcgeorge 151 u s 129 151 u s 132 ..... 141 u s 127 texas pacific railway v cox 145 u s 593 central trust co v mcgeorge 151 u s 129 in mexican national railroad .....

Scully Vs. Bird

Court: US Supreme Court

..... court of the united states blythe v hinckley 173 u s 501 illinois central r co v adams 180 u s 28 180 u s 35 ..... not a question of jurisdiction but a question on the merits and illinois central r co v adams supra is cited that suit was brought by ..... from certifying an assessment for taxes on a railroad in which the illinois central had an interest and to enjoin the revenue agent from beginning any suit .....

Ponce Vs. Roman Catholic Church

Court: US Supreme Court

..... from the municipality or merely taken by way of loan was a matter between the central government and the municipality which could not affect the title of the church under the ..... juan there are eight including the cathedral nearly all these are well built structures occupying central locations and are ornaments to the towns where situated there are many parochial schools and .....