Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Sorted by: old Year: 1878 Page 1 of about 3 results (0.059 seconds)

Feb 11 1878 (PC)

Hemendro Coomar Mullick Son of Rooplall Mullick Vs. Rajendrolall Moons ...

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Feb-11-1878

Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal354

..... was not, i think it would require some consideration how far it is desirable that in such a case as this a note made by an ordinary trading partnership, the second suit should be barred. the rule laid down by parke b. in king v. hoare 13 m. and w. 494, 505 is very ..... of it. the question, however, as i understand it, which is submitted for our consideration, is this: if several persons carrying on an ordinary trading partnership make a joint promissory note, and one partner be sued upon it and a decree obtained, is any subsequent suit upon the same note against the remaining partners ..... to bring a fresh suit against them for the same matter.11. it was admitted by the defendants that they carried on business as ordinary traders in partnership with gourhurry shaw, and they did not deny the making of the note by gourhurry; but they denied that gourhurry had any authority to bind his ..... amount due upon a promissory note. it was stated in the plaint that the note was made by one gourhurry shaw, who carried on business in partnership with the defendants; that a suit had been previously brought against gourhurry shaw and the present defendants; and that on that occasion the plaintiff had obtained ..... this is a question which is to be determined by the english law of contract, except so far as the same may have been modified by the indian contract act. i think it impossible to deny that, under the english law, this suit would have been barred, and notwithstanding the great authority of mr. justice .....

Tag this Judgment!


Pennoyer Vs. Neff

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-01-1878

..... notice in legal proceedings instituted with respect to such partnership, association, or contracts, or to designate a place where such service may be made and notice given, and provide, upon their failure, to ..... . bish. marr. and div., sect. 156. neither do we mean to assert that a state may not require a nonresident entering into a partnership or association within its limits, or making contracts enforceable there, to appoint an agent or representative in the state to receive service of process and ..... by a jury. it will be observed that the lands were not only within the limits of the territory of iowa, but that all the indians who were made defendants under the name mentioned were also residents of iowa, and, for aught that appears to the contrary, of the very ..... him to defend, i am of the opinion that the courts have not the power to pronounce the proceeding illegal. the legislature has uniformly acted upon that understanding of the constitution." numerous provisions of the statutes of the state are commented upon, after which he proceeds: "various prudential regulations ..... sold were rendered by the commissioners for their own services under the act. the court found abundant reasons, six in number, for refusing to sustain the title thus obtained. the act was apparently an attempt dishonestly to obtain the indian title, and not intended to give a substitution for a personal service .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 27 1878 (PC)

The Empress on the Prosecution of Denonath Ghattack Vs. Rajcoomar Sing ...

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Mar-27-1878

Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal573

..... the application of this doctrine. the vakeel says that the doctrine would be monstrous that a co-sharer might build a house upon land held in joint partnership for his sole use,' and so on. then he goes on to say: 'the objection does not apply here, for a nawbut-khana is not a ..... to put an end to their continuance in the form of structure. then, looking to the words 'wrongful loss' as defined in section 23 of the indian penal code, we have,--wrongful loss is the loss by unlawful means of property to which the person losing it is legally entitled.' now it is clear ..... magistrate was erroneous. the accused persons were convicted of mischief by the magistrate. now, the definition of 'mischief is to be found in section 425 of the indian penal code' which is this: 'whoever, with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely; to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or ..... he seems to have been then advised to cover this piece of ground with logs of wood and bricks and other materials, which was undoubtedly an unjustifiable act. his servants being then charged with rioting, it appears that their counsel, instead of simply relying upon the decision of the civil court, thought fit to ..... standing by and looking on while the abatement took place; and the act of abatement was, therefore, in my opinion, legal.11. the same view of the law appears to be reproduced in the indian penal code. ''mischief' is defined in section 425, indian penal code, as the causing of any change in property in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //