Deering v Hyndman
Jurisdiction | Ireland |
Judgment Date | 08 November 1886 |
Date | 08 November 1886 |
Docket Number | (1886-C. No. 190.) |
Court | Court of Appeal (Ireland) |
Appeal.
Before LORD ASHBOURNE, C., SIR MICHAEL, MORRIS, C.J., and FITZGIBBON and BARRY, L. JJ.
Set-off Agreement excluding
Vox.. XVIII.] Q. B., C. P., & EX. DIVISIONS. 467 " The proposal here was conditional on certain things being done, C. P. Div. which might be performed, or might not." 1886. In the present case the plaintiff, in my opinion, has not shown WRITE any right to recover the possession of the premises, as claimed by m v. him, or to have the alleged agreement specifically performed, same being incomplete and defective on the grounds above mentioned ; and the defendant is consequently entitled to our judgment on this demurrer. MURPHY, J., concurred. Solicitor for the plaintiff : Thomas O'Meara. Solicitor for the defendant : Edward A. Ennis. DEERING AND OTHERS v. HYND MAN (1). Appeal. 1886. (1886-0. No. 190.) Nov. 8. Set-of-Agreement excluding-Irish Bankrupt and Insolvent Act, 1867, sect. 251. APPEAL by the defendant from the judgment of the Queen's Bench Division, dated the 29th June, 1886, discharging a condiÂÂtional order to change the verdict and judgment at the dial for the plaintiffs into a verdict for the defendant, and to enter judgment for him accordingly. The hearing in the Court below is reported fully, ante, p. 323. Weir, Q.C., and Gerrart Q.C. (with them M'Leas), for the appellant. (1) Before Loan AERBOURNE, C., Su' ificaszr. Moms, C. J., and FITZÂÂGIBBON and BABE; L. IT. VoL. XVIII. 2 R Appeal. Carton, Q. C., Dodd, Q. C., and J. J. Shaw, appeared for the 1886. respondents, but were not called on. DEERING HERMAN. THE COURT affirmed the judgment of the Queen's Bench Division, and dismissed the appeal with costs. Solicitors for the appellant : APLean, Boyle, 81, if`Lean. Solicitors for the respondents : Leatrange Brett. MURPHY fo: NOLAN (1). (1886-a. No. 210.) Practice-Specially indorsed...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Halesowen Presswork & Assemblies Ltd v Westminster Bank Ltd
...is open to question. In any event, the remarks of James L.J. and Baggallay L.J., if correctly reported, were clearly obiter. 33In Deering & Ors v. Hyndman (1886) 18 L.R. (Ir.) Q.B. 323 May C.J. and Johnson J. followed the observations of James L.J. and Baggallay L.J. and held that the statu......
- Re Maxwell Communication Corporation Plc