Johnson V The - Law Dictionary Search Results
Costs
subject. See R. v. Archbishop of Canterbury, (1902) 2 KB 571; Thomas v. Pritchard, (1903) 1 KB 212; Johnson v. King,1904 AC 824; Rwland v. Air Council, 1923 WN 72; Re Carbonit, 1923, WN 208. Several Acts (English)
Scrivener
an attorney could be made bankrupt as a scrivener was decided in the negative, and Boswell's Life of Johnson, where it is related that one Jack Ellis, a contemporary of Dr. Johnson, and mentioned by him with … or profession of a scrivener, receiving other men's monies or estates into his trust or custody.' See Adams v. Malkin, (1814) 3 Camp 539, where the question whether an attorney could be made bankrupt as a scrivener
Goods
v. Balram Prasad Sharma, (2000) 7 SCC 264; Also Bailey's large dictionary of 1732; Webster's dictionary and Dr. Johnson's Dictionary. See also C.C.E. v. Eastend Paper Industries Ltd., (1989) SCC 244: 1989 SCC (Tax) 602; Union of
Keep your definitions linked to case research
Dog
Vict. c. 15), and this s. is amended by s. 5 of the (English) Dogs Act, 1906. See Johnson v. Wilson, (1909) 2 KB 497. No duty is payable for dogs under six months old (Act of 1867,
Wager
the courts were bound to enforce, so long as it was not against morality, decency, or sound policy, Johnson v. Lumley, (1852) 12 CB 468. But by the (English) Gaming Act, 1845, s. 18: All contracts or agreements,
Partition
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 By the (English) Partition Act, 1868, now repealed, it was provided (s. 3) that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
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
Under-lease
or in deed, which exist between the original lessor and lessee [Holford v. Hatch (1779) 1 Dougl 183; Johnson v. Wild, (1890) 44 Ch D 146]; but the lessor can distrain on the sub-lessee or take advantage of
Railway
exceeding the tolls by the special Act authorized to be taken by them. The section is permissive only, Johnson v. Midland Ry. Co., (1849) 18 LJ Ex 366; but the Railway Commissioners may compel a company to act
Caveat viator
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.
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »
Try the research workspace - 7 days free