Found 0 result
Showing 1157621- 1157630 of 0 result for ""
White, J.@mdashI think that the Judge, Mr. DICKENS, was right in his view, both of the law and of the facts in this case. 2. Under Act XXVII of 1860 the Court is to determine the right to the certificate, subject to an…
Wilson, J. The plaintiff obtained a decree against one Kristo Chunder Chowdry; and, in execution of that decree, he attached a house of his judgment-debtor. The defendant held a mortgage of the house. The plaintiff in …
White, J.@mdashThis is an appeal against an order of the Officiating Judge of Dacca, refusing an application, on behalf of Nubbi Buksh Bepari, to be declared an insolvent u/s 351 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. A pr…
Pontifex, J.@mdashThere are two questions to be considered in this:--1st was the house in dispute an absolute gift from Mutty Lall Seal (who died in 1854) to Shumbhoonath Mullick ? and 2nd, if it was not an absolute gif…
Mr. Phillips. 1. It was not necessary to obtain the leave of the Court u/s 44, Rule (a) of the Civil Procedure Code, to join the different causes of action upon which the plaintiffs rely. A suit for the specific perfor…
Wilson, J.@mdashRefused to order the applicant to pay the costs of the commission, or to order her to pay the estimated costs into Court, and ordered the commission to issue. Costs to be costs in the cause.
White, J.@mdashThis is an appeal against the conviction of the five appellants, named Samshere Khan, alias Sirdar, Abdul Rohoman Moonshee, Saheb Khan, Uasimuddi Meah, and Fakiroollah Khan, for murder committed in the co…
Richard Garth, C.J.@mdash(who, after stating the facts, proceeded to deal with the evidence against each prisoner individually, and with regard to the statement made by Daghu before the Committing Magistrate as affectin…
Richard Garth, C.J. and Pontifex, J.@mdashWe think that the questions referred to us should be answered as follows: (i)-The defendants, being a French company, are certainly not common carriers in the ordinary English …
Richard Garth, C.J.@mdashI think that, under the circumstances, the defendants were justified in refusing delivery of the goods. It has been contended, that as the goods were ascertained, and the time for their delivery…