Humphries V Johnson - Law Dictionary Search Results

Special defence

fails to do so in one action he may be estopped from doing so in a subsequent action humphries v humphries 1910 2 kb 531

an order for partition of a wall separating the gardens of two adjoining houses see mayfair property co v johnson 1894 1 ch 508 by the english partition act 1868 now repealed it was provided s 3 that

Mistake

this condition applies whether an error complained of was discovered before or after completion of the purchase palmer v johnson 1884 13 qbd 351 but where the misdescription is so serious as to go to the root of

Keep your definitions linked to case research

Try free for 7 days See all features

Caveat viator

whether the plaintiff was a visitor or licensee see indermaur v dames 1866 lr 1 cp 274 latham v johnson 1913 1 kb 398 and norman v great western railway company 1915 1 kb 584 2 cp 311

Allegans contraria non est audiendus

16 a person making contradictory allegations is not to be heard see broom s legal maxims and buckland v johnson 1854 23 lj cp 204 where it was held that a plaintiff having sued one of two joint

By-laws, or bye-laws

and constitutions of corporations for the government of their members see per lord russell c j in kruse v johnson 1898 2 qb 91 they are binding unless contrary to law or unreasonable and against the common benefit

Bye-law

done or not to be alone and accompanied by some sanction or penalty for its non observance kruse v johnson 1898 2 qb 91 dpp v hutchinson 1990 2 all er 836 means a rule or administrative provision

Dearle v. Hall

dearle v hall the rule which takes its name from this case reported 1823 3 russ 1 originated with the

Rule 10b-5

rule 10b 5 10b 5 from the section of the securities exchange act of 1934 pursuant to which the rule was

v.

v versus

‹ Prev
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Next ›
Last »

Try the research workspace - 7 days free

Try free for 7 days