Lord Advocate v Lord Lovat
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Court | House of Lords (Ireland) |
| Judgment Date | 12 July 1880 |
| Date | 12 July 1880 |
| Docket Number | No. 12. |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
16 cases
-
Ulster Investment Bank Ltd v Rockrohan Estate Ltd
...must be had to the individual circumstances of possession. The matter was put thus by Lord O'Hagan in Lord Advocate v Lord Lovat (1880) 5 App Cas 273 at page 288: 22 As to possession, it must be considered in every case with reference to the peculiar circumstances. The acts, implying posses......
-
Keelgrove Properties Ltd v Shelbourne Development Ltd
...... v Griffin [1969] 1 WLR23; Treloar v Nute [1976] 1 WLR 1295; LordAdvocate v Lord Lovat (1880) 5 App Cas273; Leigh v Jack (1879) 5 Ex D 264;Wallis's ...Nute, Lord O'Hagan in The Lord Advocate v. Lord Lovat said at p. 288 of the report:- "As to ......
-
Dunne v Iarnródéireann
...(in receivership) v Crowley (No 3) [2003] 1 IR 396 at 425 per Denham J, is a classic statement to that effect by Lord O'Hagan in Lord Advocate v Lord Lovat (1880) 5 App Cas 273 at 288: As to possession, it must be considered in every case with reference to the peculiar circumstances. The a......
-
Bakewell Management Ltd v Brandwood and Others
...leave any correction of the error to the House of Lords. Was the decision in Hanning made per incuriam? 22 Mr Morgan relies on The Lord Advocate v Lord Lovat (1880) 5 App. Cas. 273 as a decision with which Hanning is inconsistent. There Lord Lovat disputed the right of the Crown to the salm......
Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
-
NOTES OF CASES
...3 All E.R. 589C. z7 I19741 3 W.L.R. at p. 403F: 119741 3 All E.R. 590D. quoting Lord O’Hanan in .- Lord Advocufe v. Lord Lovat (1880) 5-App.Cas. 273, 288. 28 [1974] 3 W.L.R. at p. 404A; [1974] 3 All E.R. at p. 590F, quoting Sellers L.J. in Wtlliums v. Ruffery at 173. 29 e.g. where the iiser......