Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Year: 1893 Page 1 of about 131 results (0.024 seconds)

Apr 25 1893 (PC)

Aukella Vydianatham Vs. Kuncham Gangarazu

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-25-1893

Reported in : (1893)3MLJ132

..... v thynne show, p. c. 76, which went to the house of lords is that it is conducive to public good that marriages should be procured and promoted by the mediation of relatives and friends and not by hirelings. on principle this rule appears to be of general application and not of a special or conventional character. is there anything then .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 15 1893 (FN)

Pickett Vs. Foster

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : May-15-1893

..... been given in favor of their ancestor, james c. pickett, of the district of columbia, upon a plantation situate in the parish of carroll (now east carroll), louisiana, by the mediate grantors of the present occupant of the property, mrs. mary j. gwyn, wife of george foster. the bill charged that the existence of any impediments which might serve to prevent .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 09 1893 (FN)

De La Vergne Ref. Mach. Co. Vs. Featherstone

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-09-1893

..... f. 753. the rule in shelley's case was that when an estate of freehold is limited to a person for life, and the same instrument contains a limitation, either mediate or immediate, to his heirs, or the heirs of his body, the word "heirs" is a word of limitation, and the grantee takes the whole estate, either in fee tail .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 06 1893 (PC)

Rohni Singh and ors. Vs. J. Hodding, Administrator of the Estate of th ...

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jun-06-1893

Reported in : (1894)ILR21Cal340

o'kinealy and ameer ali, jj.1. this is an appeal from an order of the subordinate judge of chupra, dated the 25th of june 1892, whereby he directed that certain parties should get restitution and be entitled to be put exactly in the same position they were in before the suit was brought. it appears that there are two classes of owners in this village--one of them, mr. hodding, has a five-pies odd share, and rohni singh and others are the owners of the 15 annas odd pie share. the owners of the 15 annas share brought a suit for partition of certain land against hodding. that suit was decreed in the first court, but on appeal, the suit was dismissed on the ground that no such suit would lie. after the dismissal of the suit hodding applied in the lower court to be put in the same position as he was in before the suit was brought. in the meantime the owners of the 15 annas odd had taken out execution of the decree for partition and settled tenants upon it. therefore, when the question of restitution arose, it became necessary to decide what was the position of hodding in regard to these tenants. the learned advocate-general has argued that under section 583 of the code of civil procedure, restitution cannot be granted, by motion, unless there is an order for restitution in the decree. so far as we are aware, that is a proposition contrary to the settled practice of this court and of the bombay high court, as well as of their lordships of the privy council, hodding has no doubt .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 12 1893 (PC)

Venkatanarasimha Naidu Vs. Suranna

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-12-1893

Reported in : (1894)ILR17Mad298

1. the preliminary point in this case is whether orders passed under madras act viii of 1865 by a collector are open to revision under section 622 of the code of civil procedure.2. the question was answered in the negative in velli periya mira v. moidin padsha i.l.r. 9 mad. 332 which was followed in appandai v. srihari joishi i.l.r. 16 mad. 4513. it has now been contended that the revision mentioned in section 76 of act viii of 1865 (madras) means revision by the court which made the order and not revision by a superior court. we are unable thus to limit the scope of the word by introducing words which are not to be found in the section.4. as to the contention that act viii of 1865 is a local act and cannot override the provisions of section 622 of the code of civil procedure by the powers conferred on this court under the letters patent, we need only refer to section 4 of the code of civil procedure.5. we do not see sufficient ground for dissenting from the decision in velli periya mira v. moidin padsha i.l.r. 9 mad. 3326. this petition is dismissed, with costs.

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 29 1893 (PC)

Juji Kamti and ors. Vs. Annai Bhatta

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-29-1893

Reported in : (1894)ILR17Mad382

1. two questions are argued in support of this petition for revision. the first is that the bond sued on is void as an agreement falling under section 257a of the code of civil procedure. that section is inserted in the code in the chapter relating to the execution of decrees and in the section headed 'mode of executing decrees.' this suggests that the intention was to render such agreement void only so far as it affects the right to execute the decree. as observed in sellamayyan v. muthan i.l.r. 12 mad. 61 where the benefit of a decree is given up, and in consideration of it a bond is executed, it cannot be intended that the bond should not be the foundation of a fresh suit. this is also the view taken by the high court of calcutta. hukum chand oswal v. taharunnessa bibi i.l.r. 16 cal. 504; jhabar mohamad v. modem sonahar i.l.r. 11 cal. 671 we are aware that the high court at bombay has held otherwise, but the scheme of the code does not appear to have been allowed due effect in arriving at those decisions.2. the second question is whether the suit is time-barred. if, as alleged in the plaint, the first instalment of rs. 50 was paid in february 1886, as the next instalment was not payable till february 1887, the suit brought in january 1890 was in time. in the revision petition defendants claim credit for the sum of rs. 50. we cannot, therefore, say the suit is time-barred.3. a further question raised is as to the liability of the third defendant for the debt. third .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 05 1893 (PC)

Velu Pillai and ors. Vs. Ghose Mahomed Rowthar and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-05-1893

Reported in : (1894)4MLJ140

1. the only point argued in this appeal is as to the correctness of the judge in holding that the account on which plaintiffs rely is not a mutual account within the meaning of article 85 of schedule ii of the limitation act.2. the reason assigned by the district judge is that with one trifling exception, and that beyond the period of limitation, the account has been invariably in favor of plaintiffs. he says, 'although it may not be necessary in order to bring the case within article 85 of act xv of 1877 that there should be actual demands, it is necessary that the balance should fluctuate, being at times in favor of one party and at times in favor of the other,' and in support of this proportion he refers to narrandas hemraj v. vissandas hemraj i. l. r 6 b 134 and hajee syud mahomed v. mussamut ashrufoonnissa i. l. r 5 c 7593. in the former case it was said by sir charles sargent, c. j., that the corresponding clause of act ix of 1871 appeared to have been intended to apply to 'cases where the course of business has been of such a nature as to give rise to reciprocal demands between, the parties, in other words, where the dealings between the parties are such that sometimes the balance may he in favor of one party and sometimes of the other.' the meaning of which is not that there must have been such a shifting balance, but such was a possible and likely incident of the mutual transactions with regard to which the account was kept.4. the case in i. l, r 5 c 759 is authority .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 23 1893 (FN)

Aspen Mining and Smelting Co. Vs. Billings

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Oct-23-1893

aspen mining & smelting co. v. billings - 150 u.s. 31 (1893) u.s. supreme court aspen mining & smelting co. v. billings, 150 u.s. 31 (1893) aspen mining and smelting co. v. billings nos. 918, 919 submitted october 10, 1893 decided october 23, 1893 150 u.s. 31 appeals from the circuit court of the united states district of colorado syllabus an order allowing an appeal to this court is, so long as the appeal remains unperfected and the cause has not passed into the jurisdiction of the appellate tribunal, subject to the general power of a circuit court over its own judgments, decrees, and orders during the existence of the term at which they are made. evans v. state bank, 134 u. s. 330 , distinguished from this case. if a motion or petition for rehearing is made or presented in season and entertained by the court, the time limited for a writ of error or appeal does not begin to run until the motion is disposed of. no appeal lies to this court from a judgment of a circuit court in execution of a mandate of the circuit court of appeals. motion to dismiss. this was a bill of complaint filed by james o. wood and others against the aspen mining & smelting company and others in the circuit court of the united states for the district of colorado on april 14, 1888, which resulted, upon final hearing on pleadings and evidence, in a decree october 20, 1890 -- one of the days of the may term, 1890, of the court -- dismissing the bill at the costs of the complainants. the record, after .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 17 1893 (FN)

National Meter Co. Vs. Yonkers Water Comm'rs

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Apr-17-1893

national meter co. v. yonkers water comm'rs - 149 u.s. 48 (1893) u.s. supreme court national meter co. v. yonkers water comm'rs, 149 u.s. 48 (1893) national meter company v. yonkers water commissioners no. 192 argued march 29, 1893 decided april 17, 1893 149 u.s. 48 appeal from the circuit court of the united states for the southern district of new york syllabus claims 3, 4, 5 and 6 of reissued letters patent no. 10,806, granted february 8, 1887, to the national meter company as assignee of lewis hallock nash, for improvements in water meters, on the surrender of original letters patent no. 211,582, granted to said nash, january 21, 1879, are not infringed by water meters constructed according to letters patent reissued to the hersey meter company, no. 10,778, november 2, 1886, as assignees of james a. tilden, and to letters patent no. 357, 159, granted to james a. tilden, february 1, 1887, and to letters patent granted to said company, as assignee of said tilden, no. 385,910, july 10, 1888. the nash piston has a side-rocking movement across the center of the cylinder, upon successive bearing points made by the contact of a projection on the piston with the recess in the cylinder, or conversely, and the piston rotates upon its own axis, so that each projection comes successively into each recess of the cylinder. but in the defendant's structure, there is no side-rocking, nor any rotary motion, and each projection in the piston always operates in connection with one .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 20 1893 (FN)

Hume Vs. Bowie

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Mar-20-1893

hume v. bowie - 148 u.s. 245 (1893) u.s. supreme court hume v. bowie, 148 u.s. 245 (1893) hume v. bowie no. 1107 submitted february 0, 1893 decided march 20, 1893 148 u.s. 245 error to the supreme court of the district of columbia syllabus when the parties to a suit tried in the supreme court of the district of columbia, at circuit, cannot agree as to the exceptions, the trial term may, under the rules, be extended into the succeeding term for the purpose of settling them; and in case the judge presiding at the trial dies without settling them, and in consequence thereof a motion be made to set aside the verdict and order a new trial, the then presiding judge in the circuit court may order the motion to be heard in general term, and an order to set aside the verdict and direct a new trial made in general term is not a final judgment from which an appeal may be taken to this court. this was an action brought by william b. bowie in the supreme court of the district of columbia against frank hume, as endorser upon a promissory note. the defendant pleaded to the declaration, issue was joined, and on the trial of the cause a verdict was rendered may 25, 1888, in favor of the defendant. during the trial, various exceptions were reserved to the rulings and instructions of the court, which were duly noted at the time by the presiding justice upon his minutes. a motion for new trial was made and overruled june 2, 1888, and an appeal to the general term was thereupon taken, and a bond .....

Tag this Judgment!


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