Found 0 result
Showing 1163621- 1163630 of 0 result for ""
Sir Barnes Peacock, Kt., C.J.@mdashThe case has been fully argued before us, and we are of opinion that the judgment was not a judgment in rem, and that it was not admissible in evidence against the plaintiff. The petit…
Sir Barnes Peacock, Kt., CJ. 1. The Judge in this case says that the dakhilas produced by the defendant are not anywhere denied by the plaintiff, and consequently, under the ruling in Kazee Khoda Newaz v. Nubokissore R…
Sir Barnes Peacock, Kt., C.J.@mdashWe think that in this case the Judge had jurisdiction. S. 26, Regulation V of 1812, is in the following words: "Inconvenience to the public, and injury to private rights, having been e…
Sir Barnes Peacock, Kt., CJ. 1. Several Regulations have been referred to. The first was Regulation VII of 1799, cl. 1, s. 15, of which declares that "any zamindar, talookdar, or proprietor, or farmer of land, to whom …
Sir Barnes Peacock, Kt., C.J.@mdashThe plaintiffs in this case were dispossessed under a sale in execution of a decree against Hurreeram and others. The plaintiffs'' property was not liable to be sold under that executi…
Sir Barnes Peacock, Kt., C.J.@mdashIn this case a decree for the payment of money was obtained against Shamdyall in the Court of the Sudder Moonsiff of Moorshedabad. The decree was sent to the Moonsiff of Beerbhoom for …
Sir Barnes Peacock, Kt., C.J.@mdashThe plaintiff in this case sued in the Backergunge Court for the recovery of certain lands, and the defendant objected that the lands in question were not in the district of Backergung…
Sir Barnes Peacock, Kt., C.J.@mdashIf this were a suit merely to set aside a summary-decision as to the light of possession under Act XIX of 1841, we are of opinion that (if any such suit is maintainable) it should, und…
Sir Barnes Peacock, Kt., C.J.@mdashThe question in this case is, whether, when a ferry, previously held under private management, has been declared to be a public ferry by the Government, under the provisions of Regulat…