Does - Judgment Search Results

East Alabama Ry. Co. Vs. Doe

Court: US Supreme Court

..... the first part as sheriff of the said county of chambers has and does hereby bargain and sell alien and convey unto said d w and ..... assigns forever and said party of the first part as sheriff as aforesaid does covenant with the said party of the second part that he as ..... s supreme court east alabama ry co v doe 114 u s 340 1885 east alabama railway company v doe argued march 20 1885 decided april 13 .....

Doe Vs. Hyde

Court: US Supreme Court

doe v hyde 114 u s 247 1885 u s supreme court doe v hyde 114 u s 247 1885...

Maksud Ali and ors. Vs. Newaj

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal131

..... code of civil procedure read in connection with section 3 of act xl of 1858 does not as contended for by the vakil enjoin such a written permission being granted by .....

Ram Chunder Singh Vs. Madho Kumari and ors. by the Court of Wards

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal484

..... mouzah lalghur but as far as we know bahrut took no action on this nor does any assertion or counter assertion of rights appear to have taken place between the holders .....

Anderson, Wright and Co. Vs. Kalagarla Surji Narain

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal339

..... of a totally different nature and the fact of their arising under the same contract does not change their nature or make them one and the same cause of action 10 .....

Bykant Nath Shaha Vs. Rajendro NaraIn Rai and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal333

..... applied to immoveable property at all but they stated that even assuming that the section does apply to immoveable property there is nothing in it so far as we can see .....

Miller, Official Assignee Vs. Runga Nath Moulick and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal389

..... depended upon a very difficult question of the hindu law relating to adoption and it does not appear to us that indramani and her grandsons in taking up this case to .....

Bama Sundari Dabai and anr. Vs. Ram Lall Moitra

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal307

..... was it necessary for him to sue to have it removed plaintiff s title moreover does not depend upon that order 3 another objection on the point of limitation is raised .....

In Re: the Menglas Tea Estate

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal383

..... by the madras high court and reported in i l r 5 mad p 15 does not seem applicable to this case the transfers there so far as i can gather .....

Gobind Chunder Addi and anr. Vs. Jogendro Nath Sircar

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal252

..... we are of opinion that this view of the law is not strictly correct it does not necessarily follow that because the title of the execution purchaser dates from the date .....