Francis v Cockrell

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Year1865
Date1865
CourtExchequer
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
27 cases
  • Riverstone Meat Company Pty. Ltd v Lancashire Shipping Company Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 7 February 1961
    ...he would be faced by such authority as Grote v. Chester & Holyhead Railway Co. 2 Ex. 251, Wilkinson v. Rea Ltd. [1941] 1 K.B. 688, Francis v. Cockrell (1870) L.R. 5 Q.B. 501. I do not think it necessary to try to reconcile all the cases on this subject. It is surely sufficient to say tha......
  • Young & Marten Ltd v McManus Childs Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 10 July 1968
    ...show any clear consciousness of a difference in principle between a sale of goods and a contract for labour and materials. (See e.g. Francis v. Cockrell L.R. 5 Q.B. 501, Randall v. Newsom 2 Q.B.D. 102 and Jones v. Just L.R. 3 Q.B. 197 at 22It is frequent for builders to fit baths, sanita......
  • Liverpool City Council v Irwin
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 22 July 1975
    ...or into the carriage of a passenger by railway,see Read head v. Midland Railway (1869) L.R. 4 Q.B. 379: or to enter on premises, see Francis v. Cockrell (1870) L.R. 5 Q.B. 501: or to buy a house in course of erection, see Hancock v. Brazier (1966) 1 W.L.R. 1317. 30 If you read the discussio......
  • Murphy v Brentwood District Council
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 21 December 1989
    ...for he would be faced by such authority as Grote v. Chester and Holyhead Railway Co., Wilkinson v. Rea Ltd. (1941) 1 K.B. 688 and Francis v. Cockrell (1870) L.R. 5 Q.B. 501. I do not think it necessary to try to reconcile all the cases on this subject. It is surely sufficient to say that i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Case Note
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2013, December 2013
    • 1 December 2013
    ...see Australian Law Reform Commission, Occupier's Liability (Report No 42, 1988) at p 5. 22 See, for example, Francis v Cockrell(1870) LR 5 QB 501. 23 See, for example, Indermaur v Dames(1866) LR 1 CP 24 See, for example, Latham v R Johnson & Nephew Ltd[1913] 1 KB 398. 25 This is a less comm......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT