Found 0 result
Showing 1158131- 1158140 of 0 result for ""
Pearson, J.@mdashThe sale was made on the 20th June 1876, in execution of the defendant-appellant''s decree dated 15th January 1876, which declared a lien created by a bond, dated 17th July 1873, in pursuance of an atta…
Pearson, J.@mdashThe precedent to which the Judge refers supports Iris decision. But I am not myself able to assent altogether to the ruling in the precedent. In the first place, I doubt whether the notice issued by the…
Richard Garth Kt., C.J.@mdashThe questions involved in this case are of great general importance, and having considered them carefully, we are of opinion that the view taken by the Judge in the Court below was erroneous…
Richard Garth, C.J.@mdashAs the question in each of these cases is of a somewhat similar character, and seems to depend upon the same principle, and as on looking into the authorities there appears to be some difference…
Ainslie, J.@mdashThe plaintiff in the present case sued for the recovery of possession of certain property on the allegation that she had made a verbal settlement with the defendant; and that the term of the settlement …
Richard Garth, C.J.@mdashWe are of opinion that by the Mahomedan law one co-parcener has no right of pre-emption as against another co-parcener. There appears to be no reason, either upon principle or authority, why the…
James W. Colvile, J. 1. This application seems to involve two distinct questions: 1st. Whether the Petitioner, if assumed to have been properly made a party to the suit in the Courts below, and bound by the proceeding…
L.S. Jackson, J.@mdashWhat the plaintiffs sought in this suit was an order that a certain mehal, or share in a mehal, in the possession of the defendants might be brought to sale in satisfaction of the balance due on a …
J.W. Colvile, J.@mdashThis application seems to involve two distinct questions: 1st.--Whether the petitioner, if assumed to have been properly made a party to the suit in the Courts below, and bound by the proceedings …