The American Law Review, Volume 4Little, Brown, and Company, 1870 - Law |
From inside the book
Results 1-5 of 80
Page 68
... held ( at the trial ) that the defendant was bound to provide a safe vehicle , and the ac- cident happened from a defect in the axletree . If so , when the coach started it was not roadworthy , and the defendant is liable for the con ...
... held ( at the trial ) that the defendant was bound to provide a safe vehicle , and the ac- cident happened from a defect in the axletree . If so , when the coach started it was not roadworthy , and the defendant is liable for the con ...
Page 69
... held , in sub- stance , that the company was responsible , both for the manufacturer's possessing the requisite skill , and for his actual exercise of that skill in each particular axle ; " and , after referring to Sharp v . Grey , as ...
... held , in sub- stance , that the company was responsible , both for the manufacturer's possessing the requisite skill , and for his actual exercise of that skill in each particular axle ; " and , after referring to Sharp v . Grey , as ...
Page 93
... Held , that the charge of £ 500 for said half - year had been acquiesced in and was valid , but that this could not be inferred for subsequent half years . Also , that the right of the bank to charge compound interest ended with the ...
... Held , that the charge of £ 500 for said half - year had been acquiesced in and was valid , but that this could not be inferred for subsequent half years . Also , that the right of the bank to charge compound interest ended with the ...
Page 97
... Held , that the order was binding on C. , although not under seal , and whether the managing director of E. knew the purpose for which the rails were to be used or not ; and that E. could prove for damages caused by C.'s non ...
... Held , that the order was binding on C. , although not under seal , and whether the managing director of E. knew the purpose for which the rails were to be used or not ; and that E. could prove for damages caused by C.'s non ...
Page 99
... Held , that C. was entitled to substantial and not merely nominal damages . ( Exch . Ch . ) - Matthews v . Discount Corporation , L. R. 4 C. P. 228 . See PROXIMATE CAUSE ; VENDOR AND PURCHASER OF REAL ESTATE . DEATH . 1. On a trial for ...
... Held , that C. was entitled to substantial and not merely nominal damages . ( Exch . Ch . ) - Matthews v . Discount Corporation , L. R. 4 C. P. 228 . See PROXIMATE CAUSE ; VENDOR AND PURCHASER OF REAL ESTATE . DEATH . 1. On a trial for ...
Contents
168 | |
201 | |
217 | |
236 | |
253 | |
303 | |
323 | |
324 | |
350 | |
374 | |
378 | |
398 | |
404 | |
584 | |
625 | |
664 | |
679 | |
700 | |
724 | |
745 | |
764 | |
779 | |
790 | |
792 | |
793 | |
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
action alleged allowed amount appear applied assignee authority bank bankrupt bankruptcy bill bonds brought called carrier cause charge cited claim common Congress considered Constitution contains contract court creditors damages debt decided decision defendant discharge duty easements effect English entitled equity evidence execution existence express fact force fraud give given granted ground Held implied important intent interest issue judge judgment jurisdiction jury Justice land legal tender liable LIMITATIONS Lord March matter means mortgage nature necessary negligence notes notice opinion original paid party passed payment person plaintiff possession practice present principle proceedings proved purchased question reason received recover reference Reports rule ship statute suit Supreme Court taken tenant term trust United volume Wallace warranty York