Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Sorted by: old Year: 1903 Page 1 of about 3 results (0.084 seconds)

Feb 23 1903 (FN)

Louisville and Jeffersonville Ferry Co. Vs. Kentucky

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Feb-23-1903

..... . c. hite, e. s. hoffman, p. varble, and daniel park. during all the intervening years, ferries had been maintained. in 1865, the persons then owning the ferry organized as a partnership for the purpose of operating it, and in that capacity continued to operate it until the louisville & jeffersonville ferry company was incorporated, as above stated. under its ..... act of incorporation, the company procured to be conveyed to itself the above-mentioned ferry franchises with the boats then owned by the partnership, and issued therefor its fully paid capital stock for $200,000. the boats and personal property so acquired were ..... from which the appeals are prosecuted are for the franchise tax for the years of 1894, 1895, 1896, 1897, and 1898. the appellant is a corporation organized under a special act of the legislature passed in 1869. it purchased a ferry franchise, which had been originally granted by the territorial authorities of indiana, which authorized the original grantee to conduct a ..... states. the facts admitted by the demurrer to the answer, and therefore, for the purposes of the present hearing, to be taken as true, are substantially as follows: by an act of the general assembly of kentucky, approved march the 16th, 1869, the louisville & jeffersonville ferry company was created a corporation, with power to carry on the business of ferrying freight .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 04 1903 (PC)

Mohori Bibee and Another Vs. Dharmodas Ghose

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Mar-04-1903

Reported in : (1903)30IndianAppeals114

..... can employ or be an agent. again, under ss. 247 and 248, although a person under majority may be admitted to the benefits of a partnership, he cannot be made personally liable for any of its obligations; although he may on attaining majority accept those obligations if he thinks fit to do ..... by persons competent to contract, and therefore not to infants. the general current of decision in india certainly is that ever since the passing of the indian contract act (ix, of 1872) the contracts of infants are voidable only. this conclusion, however, has not been arrived at without vigorous protests by various judges ..... viii. 163; and colebrooke's dig. liii. 2, vol. ii. p. 181; although there are no doubt, decisions of some weight that before the indian contract act an infant's contract was voidable only in accordance with english law as it then stood. the appeal, therefore, wholly fails; and their lordships will humbly ..... to take away the privilege of infancy: nelson v. stocker.20 the same principle is recognised in the explanation to s. 19 of the indian contract act, in which it is said that a fraud or misrepresentation which did not cause the consent to a contract of the party on whom such ..... left all matters regarding the minority in the hands of kedar babu. the appellants' counsel contended that the plaintiff is estopped by s. 115 of the indian evidence act (i. of 1872) from setting up that he was an infant when he executed the mortgage. the section is as follows: estoppel. when one .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 22 1903 (PC)

The Madras Consolidated Sugar and Spirit Factories, Limited Vs. Willia ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-22-1903

Reported in : (1904)14MLJ443

..... by reason of which a contract--in respect of which relief is sought--has been entered into by another of the partners, on behalf of the partnership, the period of limitation prescribed. by article 96 will begin to run from the date of such discovery notwithstanding that the latter partner chooses to ..... same. and it is clear law that there can be no ratification of a, part of the agent's act except in the sense that it is a ratification of the whole (vide indian contract act, section 199, story on agency, section 250). that the english company did not ratify the whole is of ..... construction of exhibit d, the defendant company was not so liable and that, in regard to exhibit d, both the plaintiffs and the defendant company acted under the same mistake as in regard to exhibit f. if the plaintiffs are entitled to relief as against the defendant; on the ground of mistake ..... the debt assigned to him, may appropriate the same towards the debt due to him from his original debtor (vide section 134 of the transfer of property act). the transfers made (in the various sets of books) by the plaintiffs, who were the managing agents of the english company, were, as understood ..... mistake, common to both the plaintiffs and the defendant. the mistake was in believing that the east india distilleries' company (incorporated under the english companies' acts 1862 to 1893) which under an agreement (exhibit f), dated the 14 december 1897, purchased from the defendant company all the property which the latter .....

Tag this Judgment!

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