Binney v Binney & Hill
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Year | 1936 |
| Date | 1936 |
| Court | Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division |
-
- 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
3 cases
- Antoniammal Saminathan and Another; Jambalingam Saminathan also spelt as Saminaden
-
Williams v Williams et Al
...court. 16 On the issue of unreasonable delay, learned counsel for the respondent referred to the cases of:– Billy v. Billy and Hill [1936] 2 All ER 409 Greenwood v. Greenwood [1937] 3 All ER 63 Blunt v. Blunt [1943] 2 All ER 76 Lowe v. Lowe [1952] 2 All ER 671 Llewellyn v. Llewel......
-
John Samuel Milligan (Petitioner:) (Appellant:) Florence Milligan (Respondent:) (Respondent:) William Budd (Co-Respondent)
...delay or not. "Unreasonable delay" was considered by Mr. Justice Bucknill (as he then was) in the case of ( Binney v. Binney & Hill 1936, P., 178). The learned Judge said: "I understand the statute to mean culpable delay, something in the nature of acquiescence such as shows the Petitioner ......
2 books & journal articles
-
Preliminary Sections
...250 Bertram v. Bertram (1944) P.59 73 Betts v. Receiver for Metropolitan Police District (1932) 2 K.B.D. 598, 601-2 53 Binney v. Binney (1936) P. 178; (1936) 2 All E.R. 409. 73 Blay v. Solomon 12 W.A.C.A. 175. 35 Blunt v. Blunt (1943) A.C. 517, 522. 73 Bray v. Ford (1896) A.C. 44, 49 102 Br......
-
On Tariff Policy: The Formative Years1
...No. 7, U.G. 48-'45, p. 47.141 C. G. W. Schumann, Report of the Customs Tariff Commission, 1934-35, S.A. Journal of Economics, June, 1936, pp. 178, 180-1.Professor Schumann was not an uncritical advocate of protection. In the last paragraph of his review (p. 181) he suggested thecreation of ......