Found 0 result
Showing 1163481- 1163490 of 0 result for ""
Macpherson, J.@mdashI think that the Lower Appellate Court is right; for I concur with the Judge in the opinion that a gomastah cannot institute a suit in the name of the landholder by whom he is employed, unless he is …
Sir Barnes Peacock, Kt., C.J.@mdashWe have no doubt that this suit was maintainable. There was a covenant, on a given event, to make an abatement in the rent nominally fixed, and to refund a rateable proportion of the c…
Glover, J.@mdashWe see no reason whatever to interfere in the prisoner''s favour, and his appeal is rejected. Indeed, we are very decidedly of opinion that, on the evidence, the prisoner should have been convicted of mu…
Mitter, J.@mdashI am extremely sorry to differ from my learned and honorable colleagues. If the plaintiff, in this case, is in a position to prove that besides the bill of sale in question there was an independent parol…
Sir Barnes Peacock, Kt., C.J.@mdashThis case appears to me to be very clear when we look at the whole of Act XL of 1858. The recital declares, "that it is expedient to" make better provision for the care of the persons …
Phear, J.@mdashI had at first some little doubt in my mind, whether, or not, proceeding by way of appeal was the proper mode of seeking relief from this Court. Section 365 of Act VIII of 1869 says, that "all orders as t…
Sir Barnes Peacock, Kt., C.J.@mdashThe ease is almost too clear for argument. We entirely agree with the view which was expressed by Mr. Justice Jackson, when the case was referred for the opinion of a Full Bench, viz.,…
Sir Barnes Peacock, Kt., C.J.@mdashI entertain no doubt whatever in this case. Section 13 is not applicable merely to ryots having rights of occupancy, but to all under tenants or ryots. It enacts that no under-tenant o…
Sir Barnes Peacock, Kt., C.J.@mdashAccording to the plaintiff''s own showing, the notice was not served until the 9th of December 1864, and the mortgage-money was deposited on the 9th of December 1865. Excluding the all…