Inglis v Robertson and Baxter
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 July 1898 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1898] UKHL J0711-3 |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Date | 11 July 1898 |
[1898] UKHL J0711-3
House of Lords
After hearing Counsel for the Appellant, as well on Tuesday the 15th as Thursday the 17th days of March last, upon the Petition and Appeal of Robert William Inglis, of Bigods Hall, Dunmow, in the county of Essex, praying, That the matter of the Interlocutors set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary in Scotland, of the 20th of March 1896, and also an Interlocutor of the Lords of Session there, of the Second Division, of the 18th of March 1897, might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen in Her Court of Parliament, and that the said Interlocutors might be reversed, varied, or altered, or that the Petitioner might have such other relief in the premises as to Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, might seem meet; as also upon the printed case of Messrs. Robertson and Baxter, lodged in answer to the said Appeal: And Counsel appearing for the said Respondents but not being called on, and due consideration being had this day of what was offered for the said Appellants:
It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the Court of Parliament of Her Majesty the Queen assembled, That the said Interlocutors complained of in the said Appeal be, and the same are hereby, Affirmed, and that the said Petition and Appeal be, and the same is hereby, dismissed this House: And it is further Ordered, That the Appellant do pay or cause to be paid to the said Respondents the Costs incurred in respect of the said Appeal, the amount thereof to be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments: And it is further Ordered, That the Cause be, and the same is hereby, remitted back to the Court of Session in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Schildkamp
...have a wide meaning have been held to be restricted by their context to a narrower meaning. Such a case is Inglis v. Robertson & Baxter [1898] A.C. 616 where section 3 of the Factors Act, 1889, extended to Scotland by the Factors (Scotland) Act, 1890, fell to be construed. The section enact......
-
Macmillan Inc. v Bishopsgate Investment Trust Plc (No. 3)
...v. Christie Manson & Woods Ltd (1990) Ch.496. It was applied by the House of Lords to a dispute about priority in Inglis v. Robertson (1898) AC 616, although the purist might say that the decision was as to the Scots as opposed to English rules of Conflict. As was pointed out by Mr Blair, f......
-
Edward Dohertt v Frederick H. Kennedy, William Findlater, and The Dublin City Distillery Company, Ltd
...at p. 458. (2) [1892] A. C. 231. (1) 4 Ad. & Ell. 58. (2) L.R. 10 Ch. App. 491. (3) 1st Edition, 1901. (1) L. R. 10 Ch. App. 491. (2) [1898] A. C. 616. (3) 28 L. J. Mag. Cas. (N. S.), 210. (4) 6 Ch. Div. 195. (5) 16 M. & W. 119. (6) L. R. 4 H. L. 317. (1) L. R. 4 H. L. 317. (1) In the Court......
-
Rex v Mpanza
...Organisation and Control"; Arrow Shipping Co. v Tyne Improvement Commissioners (1894, A.C. at 529, 530); Inglis v Robertson and Baxter (1898, A.C. 616 at 624, 630); Martins v Fowler (1926, A.C. 746 at 750, 751); Turffontein Estates Ltd. v Mining Commissioners of Johannesburg (1917 AD 419 at......