Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of Queen's Bench: and the Court of Exchequer Chamber on Appeal from the Court of Queen's Bench 1861-1869
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1866 edition. Excerpt: ...17). s In Rex v. St. Luke's Hospital, 2 Burr. 1053, 1 W. Bl. 249. which was principally relied upon in the argument for the appellants, the decision went on the ground that no person was shown to be occupier of the premises in question. In the present case there is no such difficulty, as by the express terms ...
Read More
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1866 edition. Excerpt: ...17). s In Rex v. St. Luke's Hospital, 2 Burr. 1053, 1 W. Bl. 249. which was principally relied upon in the argument for the appellants, the decision went on the ground that no person was shown to be occupier of the premises in question. In the present case there is no such difficulty, as by the express terms of the settlement, as well as from the nature of the thing, the trustees are to be in occupation of the premises for the purpose of carrying out the charity. It is true that Lord Mansfield, in the case referred to, uses language which has been understood to lay down the proposition that where the occupants of land are bound to apply it for the benefit of a charity they are not rateable; but this doctrine has not recently been adhered to. In the last case upon the subject, Reg. v. The Licensed Victuallers' Society, 1 B. & S. 71 (E. C. L. R. vol. 101), my brother Hill says, p. 76, " I do not agree that there is no distinction between buildings used for charitable, and buildings used for public, purposes. In the former case, there is an actual occupier: in the latter there is not;" and my brother Crompton referred to several recent cases in which that distinction had been pointed out. The Court in that case acted upon that distinction, and we think we ought to follow that decision. The consequence is, that in each case the order of Sessions must be quashed, and the names of the appellants restored. Order of Sessions quashed. RICHARDS v. MORGAN. Nov. 23. 641 Evidence.--Admission by conduct.--Deposition in Chancery. In an action of replevin for taking sheep, the defendant avowed for damage feasant in the locus in quo held by him as tenant under M., the owner in fee. On this avnwry issue wag taken. At the trial the question was, whether the locus...
Read Less
Choose your shipping method in Checkout. Costs may vary based on destination.
Seller's Description:
PLEASE NOTE, WE DO NOT SHIP TO DENMARK. New Book. Shipped from UK in 4 to 14 days. Established seller since 2000. Please note we cannot offer an expedited shipping service from the UK.
Choose your shipping method in Checkout. Costs may vary based on destination.
Seller's Description:
PLEASE NOTE, WE DO NOT SHIP TO DENMARK. New Book. Shipped from UK in 4 to 14 days. Established seller since 2000. Please note we cannot offer an expedited shipping service from the UK.
Choose your shipping method in Checkout. Costs may vary based on destination.
Seller's Description:
PLEASE NOTE, WE DO NOT SHIP TO DENMARK. New Book. Shipped from UK in 4 to 14 days. Established seller since 2000. Please note we cannot offer an expedited shipping service from the UK.
Choose your shipping method in Checkout. Costs may vary based on destination.
Seller's Description:
PLEASE NOTE, WE DO NOT SHIP TO DENMARK. New Book. Shipped from UK in 4 to 14 days. Established seller since 2000. Please note we cannot offer an expedited shipping service from the UK.
All Editions of Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of Queen's Bench: and the Court of Exchequer Chamber on Appeal from the Court of Queen's Bench 1861-1869
