Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: nepali Sorted by: old Court: house of lords Page 6 of about 458 results (0.030 seconds)

Apr 04 1930 (PC)

Fry (inspector of Taxes) Vs. Jones (inspector of Taxes)

Court : House of Lords

Viscount Dunedin. MY LORDS, This is an important case with probably far-reaching consequences, and we had the benefit of a very full and able argument from the Attorney-General on behalf of the Crown, but in, the end I have come to the conclusion, though not without difficulty, that the judgement appealed from is right and should be affirmed. The facts which give rise to the question are as follows:— Salisbury House is a building of considerable size in the City of Londonand is owned by a limited company which was formed for the express purpose of acquiring the property known as Salis bury House, and utilising it. The house contains about 800 rooms. These rooms are let to tenants as offices. There is no residential occupation. No furnishings are provided. The company maintain a staff of servants to operate the lifts and act as porters and look after the building, and there is also a large staff of cleaners all under the orders of a housekeeper paid by the company. The tenants hav...

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 15 1930 (PC)

Archer-shee Vs. Garland (inspector of Taxes)

Court : House of Lords

Lord Buckmaster. MY LORDS, The Appellant is, by General Rule 16 of the Income Tax Acts, assessable to income tax in respect of the profits of his wife. Her father was a citizen of the United States of America, and under his will, made in NewYork, she is entitled to receive during her life the income of his residuary estate which is held at present by the Trust Company of New York as Executor and Trustee of the will. Art of such monies are remitted to this country by the Trustee and about these no question is raised, but part remain in New York and the liability of the Appellant to have these retained monies assessed for income tax is the sole question on this appeal. The early history of the case and all material facts are to be found in 1927 A.C., p. 844, which contains the report of the decision when the same dispute as the present was considered by this House under different circumstances. The explanation of why, notwithstanding that decision, this case is again presented to your Lo...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 06 1931 (PC)

KolbIn and Sons Vs. Kinnear and Co.

Court : House of Lords

LORD ATKIN.—The present appeal arises in an action in which the respondents, a Russian firm of flax merchants, claim against the appellants, a firm of shipbrokers at Dundee, damages for wrongfully delivering a quantity of flax and tow, the property of the respondents, to one Henry William Renny, a flax merchant of Dundee. The Lord Ordinary, Lord Fleming, decided in favour of the appellants, the defenders. On appeal, the Second Division of the Court of Session, by a majority, reversed the decision of the Lord Ordinary, and granted a decree in favour of the pursuers. The defenders have appealed. The transactions in question took place in 1917 and 1918. The action was not begun until 1927, and the trial took place in 1929. In the meantime most of the parties principally engaged had died, and many documents had in ordinary course of business disappeared. Nevertheless, sufficient evidence remains, and was adduced at the trial, to enable the material facts to be ascertained and the rig...

Tag this Judgment!

May 26 1932 (PC)

M'alister Or Donoghue Vs. Stevenson

Court : House of Lords

Lord Buckmaster(read by Lord Tomlin) MY LORDS, The facts of this case are simple. On August 26th, 1928, the Appellant drank a bottle of ginger beer, manufactured by the Respondent, which a friend had bought from a retailer and given to her. The bottle contained the decomposed remains of a snail which were not and could not be detected until the greater part of the contents of the bottle had been consumed. As a result she alleged and, at this stage her allegations must be accepted as true, that she suffered from shock and severe gastro enteritis. She accordingly instituted the proceedings against the manufacturers which have given rise to this appeal. The foundation of her case is that the Respondent, as the manufacturers of an article intended for consumption and contained in a receptacle which prevented inspection owed a duty to her as consumer of the article to take care that there was no noxious element in the goods, that they neglected such duty and are consequently liable for any ...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 28 1932 (PC)

Macdonald Vs. Macdonald

Court : House of Lords

LORD TOMLIN.—In this case a domiciled Scotsman died on the 23rd of May 1911, and his estate included land in each of the Provinces of British Columbia, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan in the Dominion of Canada, and also a mortgage on land in Canada. The deceased was survived by a widow, a son, and a daughter. The appellant is the daughter of the deceased, and was fifteen years old at her father's death. The respondent is the widow of the deceased and executrix-nominate under his holograph will, which was dated the 27th of June 1898, and was recorded in the Sheriff Court Books of the Commissariot of Aberdeen on the 13th of July 1911. The respondent was confirmed executrix-nominate to the deceased, conform to confirmation in her favour granted by the Sheriff of Aberdeen on the 15th of July 1911. By his will the deceased bequeathed to the respondent, as his universal legatee, the whole means and estate of every description of which he died possessed, but under burden of her maintaining, ...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 05 1932 (PC)

W. N. Hillas and Co., Ltd. Versus Arcos, Ltd.

Court : House of Lords

After hearing Counsel, as well on Tuesday the 3d as on Thursday the 5th and Friday the 6th, days of May last, upon the Petition and Appeal of W. N Hillas and Company, Limited, whose Registered Office is situate at Mail Buildings, Jameson Street, Hull, praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely an Order of His Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 28th of July 1931, might be reviewed before His Majesty the King, in His Court of Parliament, ami that the said Order might be reversed, varied, or altered, or that the Petitioners might have such other relief in the premises as to His Majesty the King, in His Court of Parliament, might seem meet; as also upon the printed Case of Arcos, Limited, lodged in answer to the said Appeal; and due consideration had this day of what was offered on either side in this Cause : It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the Court of Parliament of His Majesty the King assembled, That the said Order o...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 02 1933 (PC)

Arcos, Limited Versus E. A. Ronaasen and Son

Court : House of Lords

Lord Buckmaster. MY LORDS, The Appellants are an English company, and are the instruments of the Russian Government for the sale of their goods in this country. By two contracts, dated 13th November, 1929, they agreed to sell to the respondents a quantity of redwood and white- wood staves c.i.f. the River Thames. The staves were to be shipped during the summer of 1930, and were to be of the following dimensions : under one contract as to 90 standards they were to be of 1/2 in. thickness, 28 ins. in length, and 2 ins. to 5 ins. in breadth; and as to 10 standards, 1/2 in. thickness, 17 ins. in length, and 21/2 ins. to 5 ins. in breadth; and under the other, 135/180 standards were to be 1/2 in. by 28 ins. by 2 ins. to 5 ins.; 15/20, 1/2in. by 17 ins. By 2 1/2 ins. to 5 ins.; 27, 1/2in. by 28 ins. by 2 ins. to 5 ins.; 3, 1/2in. by 17 ins. by 21/2 ins. to 5 ins. Each contract was in the same terms and provided that any dispute that should arise should be forthwith referred to the decision o...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 17 1933 (PC)

Barras Vs. Aberdeen Steam Trawling and Fishing Co.

Court : House of Lords

VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER(read by Lord Russell of Killowen).—This is an appeal from the First Division of the Court of Session, recalling an interlocutor of the Sheriff which awarded to the appellant the sum of 9, 16s. as the amount of wages claimed by him under section 1 of the Merchant Shipping (International Labour Conventions) Act, 1925. This Act, passed to give effect to certain draft Conventions of the International Labour Conference, provided, section 1 (1), that, "Where by reason of the wreck or loss of a ship on which a seaman is employed his service terminates before the date contemplated in the agreement, he shall, notwithstanding anything in section one hundred and fifty-eight of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, but subject to the provisions of this section, be entitled, in respect of each day on which he is in fact unemployed during a period of two months from the date of the termination of the service, to receive wages at the rate to which he was entitled at that date." A...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 10 1933 (PC)

M'Mullan Vs. Lochgelly Iron and Coal Co.

Court : House of Lords

LORD ATKIN.—This is an appeal from the Second Division of the Court of Session, who, reversing the decision of the Lord Ordinary, held that the action was competent. The action is brought by the pursuer for damages, alleging that his son, a coal miner, while working in the employ of the defenders, was killed owing to the "fault and negligence" of the defenders in not making secure the roof of the place where the son was working. The objection made to the action is based on section 29 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, which provides: "When the injury was caused by the personal negligence or wilful act of the employer or of some person for whose act or default the employer is responsible, nothing in this Act shall affect any civil liability of the employer … but the employer … shall not be liable to any proceedings independently of this Act, except in case of such personal negligence or wilful act as aforesaid." The question is whether, taking the allegations in ...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 14 1935 (PC)

Elliot Vs. Joicey

Court : House of Lords

LORD TOMLIN.— I have had the advantage of considering the opinion which has been prepared and is about to be read by my noble and learned friend, Lord Russell of Killowen. In the conclusion of that opinion and in the reasoning on which it is based, I concur in all respects. It is therefore unnecessary for me to do more than state shortly the main reasons why I think, as I do, that the Courts below have erred. I may note here that the attention of the Courts below was not directed to the fact that Mrs Elliot was domiciled in Scotland, and that her will falls to be construed by Scots law. This oversight, however, raises no difficulty. Your Lordships' House, as the ultimate appellate tribunal both of England and of Scotland, does not require proof of the law of either country, whether the case under consideration be an English case in which a question of Scots law arises, or a case from Scotland in which a question of English law arises—see Cooper v. Cooper [1955] P 99. The fi...

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //