Rivers V Mitchell - Law Dictionary Search Results
Possibility on a possibility
possibility seems to have been a conceit invented by Popham, C.J., but it was never really intelligible, Whitby v. Mitchell, (1890) 44 Ch D p. 92, per Lindley, LJ, and never applied to trusts of personal estate [Re
Perpetuity
was another and independent rule, commonly known as the rule against double possibilities, or the rule in Whitby v. Mitchell, (1890) 44 Ch D 85, viz., that after an estate has been limited to an unborn person for
Contingent remainder
of the unborn person is void, Williams on Real Property; and see, as to this second rule, Whitby v. Mitchell, (1890) 44 Ch D 85; Re Nash, (1910) 1 Ch 1. This rule has been subjected to very
Keep your definitions linked to case research
Friendly societies
As to the exercise of the domestic jurisdiction by s. 68 for the settlement of disputes, see Andrews v. Mitchell, 1905 AC 78. The Industrial Assurance and Friendly Soci-eties Act, 1929, made it possible to issue policies on
Respondeat superior
wrong of an employee or agent if it was committed within the scope of employment or agency, Perdue v. Mitchell, 373 So 2d 650 (1979). Respondeat superior. 4 Inst. 114.--(Let the principal be held responsible.) The person directing
respondeat superior
plaintiff to prove that the collision occurred while the driver was within the scope of his employment "Perdue v. Mitchell, 373 So. 2d 650 (1979)"] compare scope of employment vicarious liability at liability
Double possibility
Double possibility. Before 1926 it was supposed [see Whitby v. Mitchell, (1890) 44 Ch D 85] that a limitation in remainder after a life interest to an unborn person
Rivered
Supplied with rivers as a well rivered country
Colorado River abstention
Colorado River abstention see abstention
Dearle v. Hall
Dearle v. Hall. The rule which takes its name from this case, reported 1823, 3 Russ. 1, originated with the
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »
Try the research workspace - 7 days free