Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United Kingdom | +44 (0) 20 7284 8080

Hampden v Walsh

The Law Reports Cited in 14 Precedent Map Related
JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Year1875
Date1875
CourtQueen's Bench Division
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
10 cases
  • G Balan Govindasamy v Lee Moi Moi and Others and Another Appeal
    • Malaysia
    • Court of Appeal (Malaysia)
    • Invalid date
  • Sorrell v Finch
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 12 May 1976
    ...to the return of his deposit, he must sue the estate agent or solicitor for it; See Eltham v. Kingsman (1818) 1 B. & Ald. 683; Hampden v. Walsh [1876] 1 Q.B.D. 189. He cannot sue the vendor, because the vendor has never received it, or become entitled to receive it." The Master of the R......
  • Burt v Claude Cousins & Company Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 2 March 1971
    ...to the return of his deposit, he must sue the estate agent or solicitor for its see Eltham v. Kingsman. 1 B. & Ad. 683; Hampden v. Walsh (1876) 1 Q. B. D. 189. He cannot sue the vendor; because the vendor has never received it, or become entitled to receive it. 21 4. WHEN NOTHING IS SAI......
  • Thomson Hill Pte Ltd v Chang Erh and Another and Another Appeal
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 6 July 1992
    ...the return of his deposit, he must sue the estate agent or solicitor for it; see Eltham v Kingsman (1818) 1 B & Ald 683; Hampden v Walsh (1876) 1 QBD 189. He cannot sue the vendor, because the vendor has never received it, or become entitled to receive This statement of the law appears to h......
    • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Restitution
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2002, December 2002
    • 1 December 2002
    ...the stakeholder before the stakeholder has paid over the deposit in accordance with instructions given by the parties: Hampden v Walsh(1876) 1 QBD 189. 19.99 Secondly, the judicial discretion to divide the deposit held by the stakeholder appears to be unprecedented under Singapore law. No a......

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