Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Year: 1905 Page 1 of about 80 results (0.018 seconds)

Oct 02 1905 (PC)

Govindasami Naidu and anr. Vs. Alagirisami Naidu and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-02-1905

Reported in : (1906)ILR29Mad104

..... whether the subordinate judge should not have allowed the appellants an opportunity of proving their allegation that the compromise was obtained by wilful suppression of a material fact from the mediators and the plaintiffs by the first defendant, the managing member of the family.3. we wish to point out that in sanctioning a compromise on behalf of an infant the ..... upon the compromise on the ground that the existence of outstanding due to the family to the extent of rs. 16,000 had been withheld from the knowledge of the mediators; that the terms of the compromise were consequently unfair; and that he was therefore not prepared to validate it by giving a fresh consent to its being accepted and acted ..... order declaring the second defendant ex parte, and directed the suit to be posted for trial on the merits with reference to the issues raised before the mediation took place and the compromise was entered into, as well as certain additional issues framed with reference to the written statement filed by the second defendant after he was allowed ..... to put in a written statement with reference to his claim. in this petition he urged that the compromise put in was not in accordance with the decision of the mediators who had settled the differences between the parties out of court. the petition stood over until april when the subordinate judge held au enquiry into the matter, set aside the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 12 1905 (PC)

Kachayi Kuttiali Haji and ors. Vs. Udumpumthala Kunhi Putha and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-12-1905

Reported in : (1906)ILR29Mad58

..... their having been come to, bona fide. further the terms thereof were arrived at with the assistance of third persona who befriended both sots of parties and apparently through their mediation the appellants consented to make considerable reductions in the amounts claimed by them according to the terms of their bonds. and lastly the leave of the court was duly obtained .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 14 1905 (PC)

Kristnamrazu Vs. Marrazu

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-14-1905

Reported in : (1905)15MLJ255

..... obtained by coercion-especially having regard to the fact that the consent mentioned in exhibit c was given by the elder brother to the younger in the presence of three mediators--is extremely slender.2. we must set aside the decrees of the lower courts and grant the injunction asked for in the plaint. we do not think it is a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 07 1905 (PC)

Avanasi Gounden and ors. Vs. Nachammal

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-07-1905

Reported in : (1906)16MLJ41

1. the question in the present case is whether the decision upon a matter which was directly and substantially in issue between the same parties in a suit which though tried by the district munsif as an original suit was yet one of a small cause nature and, therefore, in which no second appeal lay is binding in respect of the same matter in a subsequent suit in which a second appeal lay.2. this point first arose for decision in bholabhai v. adesang i.l.r (1884) b. 75 and after full consideration west and nanabhai haridas jj. answered it in the negative. this case was followed by sargent c.j. and telang j. in govindbin lakshmanshet anjorlekar v. dhondbaravbin ganbarav tambye i.l.r(1890) b. 104. in the meantime the same question arose in this court in s.a. no. 1200 of 1887 but the learned judges disagreed, wilkinson, j., holding that the prior decision operated as res judicata and kernan j. holding otherwise. in vythilinga padayachi v. vythilinga mudaly i.l.r(1891) m. 14 which was the decision of a single judge the principle of the bombay decisions was considered right and it was held that the decision of a subordinate judge in a suit for an amount less than rs. 5000 in which an appeal on a point of law only was allowed was not res judicata in a subsequent suit for an amount over es. 5000 in which an appeal lay not only on points of law but on the facts also. in namasivaya gurukkal v. kadir ammal i.l.r(1893) m. 168, muttusami aiyar and davies jj., relying on govindbin .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 01 1905 (FN)

Rodriguez Vs. United States

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : May-01-1905

rodriguez v. united states - 198 u.s. 156 (1905) u.s. supreme court rodriguez v. united states, 198 u.s. 156 (1905) rodriguez v. united states no. 183 submitted march 15, 1905 decided may 1, 1905 198 u.s. 156 error to the district court of the united states for the district of porto rico syllabus under 34, 35 of the foraker act of 1900, 31 stat. 5, this court can review judgments of the district court of the united states for porto rico in criminal cases where the accused claimed, and, as alleged, was denied, a right under an act of congress and under the revised statutes of the united states. page 198 u. s. 157 although a motion in arrest of judgment, based on the ground that the grand jury was not properly impaneled by reason of the deputy clerk's acting in place of the clerk, was made in time, and the court below may have erred in its interpretation of the statute, the accused cannot avail of that even in this court unless the record shows that an exception was properly taken. the accused could have waived such an objection to the grand jury, and, by not excepting to the ruling, he must be held to have acquiesced in the ruling and waived his objection. this writ of error brings up for review a final decree of the district court of the united states for the district of porto rico by which, in conformity with the verdict of a jury, the plaintiffs in error, rafael rodriguez and euripides rodriguez, were sentenced to confinement in the penitentiary, the former, for three .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 17 1905 (FN)

Remington Vs. Central Pacific R. Co.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Apr-17-1905

remington v. central pacific r. co. - 198 u.s. 95 (1905) u.s. supreme court remington v. central pacific r. co., 198 u.s. 95 (1905) remington v. central pacific railroad company no. 460 submitted march 6, 1905 decided april 17, 1905 198 u.s. 95 error to the circuit court of the united states for the northern district of new york syllabus this court has jurisdiction of a writ of error, upon a judgment dismissing the suit for want of jurisdiction, when it appears in due form that the ground of the judgment was want of service on defendant and that the plaintiff denied the validity of the removal of the case from a state court. if a petition to remove is filed as soon as it appears in the case that the amount in controversy is sufficient to warrant removal, it is filed in season even if the time for answer has expired under the new york practice, notwithstanding failure to serve a complaint, as to which quaere. page 198 u. s. 96 following up a motion to stay in the state court the day after notice of the amount in controversy, and obtaining an order relieving defendant from any technical default, which order took effect the same day that the petition for removal was filed, two days after such notice, does not estop defendant from removing the suit. the facts appearing of record, an allegation in a petition for removal that the time has not arrived at which defendant was required to answer or plead is sufficient. presenting the petition to a judge in chambers satisfies the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 15 1905 (FN)

Cimiotti Unhairing Co. Vs. American Fur Ref. Co.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : May-15-1905

cimiotti unhairing co. v. american fur ref. co. - 198 u.s. 399 (1905) u.s. supreme court cimiotti unhairing co. v. american fur ref. co., 198 u.s. 399 (1905) cimiotti unhairing company v. american fur refining company no. 192 argued march 17, 1905 decided may 15, 1905 198 u.s. 399 certiorari to the circuit court of appeals for the third circuit syllabus a greater degree of liberality and a wider range of equivalents are permitted where the patent is of a pioneer character than when the invention is simply an improvement, although the last and successful step in the art theretofore partially developed by other inventors in the same field. the patent involved in this case, for the unhairing of seal and other skins, while entitled to protection as a valuable invention, cannot be said to be a pioneer patent. in making his claim, the inventor is at liberty to choose his own form of expression and, while the courts may construe the same in view of the specifications and the state of the art, it may not add to or detract from the claim. as the inventor is required to enumerate the elements of his claim, no one is the infringer of a combination claim unless he uses all the elements thereof. where the patent does not embody a primary invention, but only an improvement on the prior art, the charge of infringement is not sustained if defendant's machines can be differentiated. this action was begun in the circuit court of the united states for the district of new jersey for the purpose .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 09 1905 (FN)

Fullerton Vs. Texas

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-09-1905

fullerton v. texas - 196 u.s. 192 (1905) u.s. supreme court fullerton v. texas, 196 u.s. 192 (1905) fullerton v. texas no. 112 argued december 16, 1904 decided january 9, 1905 196 u.s. 192 error to the court of criminal appeals of the state of texas syllabus it is too late to raise a federal question by petition for rehearing in the supreme court of a state after that court has pronounced its final decision unless it appears that the court entertained the petition and disposed of the question. the certificate of the presiding judge of the supreme court of the state, made after the decision, to the effect that a federal question was considered and decided adversely to plaintiff in error, cannot in itself confer jurisdiction on this court, and, on the face of this record and from the opinions, the reasonable inference is that the application for rehearing may have been denied in the mere exercise of discretion, or the alleged constitutional question was not passed on in terms because not suggested until too late. the facts are stated in the opinion. mr. chief justice fuller delivered the opinion of the court. fullerton was charged by information with unlawfully conducting, carrying on, and transacting the business of dealing in futures in cotton, grain, etc., and unlawfully keeping a bucket shop, so-called, "where future contracts were then and page 196 u. s. 193 there bought and sold with no intention of an actual bona fide delivery of the articles and things so bought and .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 29 1905 (FN)

Lavagnino Vs. Uhlig

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : May-29-1905

lavagnino v. uhlig - 198 u.s. 443 (1905) u.s. supreme court lavagnino v. uhlig, 198 u.s. 443 (1905) lavagnino v. uhlig no. 12 argued january 12, 1905 decided may 29, 1905 198 u.s. 443 error to the supreme court of the state of utah syllabus where the necessary effect of the ruling of the state court is to deny to a locator of a mineral claim the protection of the relocation provision of 2324, rev.stat., if that section justified the claim based upon it, or if the record show that the trial court considered that the plaintiff specially claimed and was denied right under 2326, rev.stat., authorizing an adverse of an application for a patent to mineral land, a federal question is involved and the motion to dismiss the writ of error will be denied. under 2326, rev.stat., where there was a conflict of boundaries between a senior and junior location, and the senior location has been forfeited, the person who made the relocation of such forfeited claim has not the right in adverse proceedings to assail the junior locator in respect to the conflict area which had previously existed between that location and the abandoned or forfeited claim. a senior locator possessed of paramount right in mineral lands may abandon such right and cause them to enure to the benefit of the applicant by failure to adverse, or after adverse, by failure to prosecute such adverse. the provision of 2326, rev.stat., as construed in this case, so qualify 2319 and 2324, rev.stat., as to prevent mineral land of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 24 1905 (FN)

Steigleider Vs. Mcquesten

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Apr-24-1905

steigleider v. mcquesten - 198 u.s. 141 (1905) u.s. supreme court steigleider v. mcquesten, 198 u.s. 141 (1905) steigleider v. mcquesten no. 227 submitted april 14, 1905 decided april 24, 1905 198 u.s. 141 appeal from the circuit court of the united states for the district of washington syllabus an averment in the bill of the diverse citizenship of the parties is sufficient to make a prima facie case of jurisdiction so far as it depends on citizenship. while, under the act of 1789, an issue as to the fact of citizenship can only be made by plea of abatement, when the pleadings properly aver citizenship, it is the duty of the court, under the act of march 3, 1875, which is still in force, to dismiss the suit at any time when its want of jurisdiction appears. a motion to dismiss the cause based upon proofs taken by the master is an appropriate mode in which to raise the question of jurisdiction. residence and citizenship are wholly different things within the meaning of the constitution and the laws defining and regulating the jurisdiction of the circuit courts of the united states, and a mere averment of residence in a state is not an averment of citizenship in that state for the purposes of jurisdiction. one who has been for many years a citizen of a state is still a citizen thereof although residing temporarily in another state, but without any purpose of abandoning citizenship in the former. the bill filed in the circuit court by the plaintiff, mcquesten, alleged her to be .....

Tag this Judgment!

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