Kendall v Hamilton

JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
Judgment Date1878
CourtHouse of Lords
Year1878
Date1878
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
72 cases
  • Republic of India and Another v India Steamship Company Ltd (Indian Endurance and Indian Grace)
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 18 February 1993
    ...transit in rem judicatam: see King v. Hoare (1844) 13 M. & W. 494, 504, per Parke B., cited by Lord Penzance and Lord Blackburn in Kendall v. Hamilton (1879) 4 App. Cas. 504, 526 and 16The distinction between cause of action estoppel and issue estoppel on the one hand, and the principle of ......
  • Petersen v Moloney
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • Invalid date
  • Pople v Evans
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • Invalid date
  • Joanna Elizabeth Birdseye and Another v Roythorne & Company and Others
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 15 April 2015
    ...exist he does have that right to make that choice which the law gives him." Similarly, Slade LJ said (at 500): "Lord Blackburn in Kendall v. Hamilton, 4 App.Cas. 504, 542, said, 'there cannot be election until there is knowledge of the right to elect.' For the reasons given by Stephenson a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Insolvency : caput 4
    • South Africa
    • Sabinet Transactions of the Centre for Business Law No. 2010-45, January 2010
    • 1 January 2010
    ...The Bankr uptcy (Scot-land) Act 1985 provides that where a partnership creditor claims 281 Drake Law of Partnership (1983) 285.282 (1879) 4 App Cas 504 (HL).283 Sections 9, 10, 11 and 12.284 Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 Schedule 1 section 6; Review Commit-tee 1982: 379. See also Scottish ......
  • DEMYSTIFYING THE RIGHT OF ELECTION IN CONTRACT LAW
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2006, December 2006
    • 1 December 2006
    ...Darnley”), at 57. 21 What was meant by “circumstances” was interpreted in Peyman v Lanjani[1985] Ch 457 as knowledge of the rights. 22 (1879) 4 App Cas 504 (“Kendall”) at 542. 23 Supra n 13 (“Young”), at 176. 24 Supra n 14 (“Evans”), at 476. 25 Supra n 21 (“Peyman”). 26 Ibid, at 487. 27 Id,......
  • Criticism, Review and Abrogation of the Jingle Rule in Partnership Insolvency: A Comparative Perspective
    • South Africa
    • Juta South Africa Mercantile Law Journal No. , May 2019
    • 25 May 2019
    ...to the f‌irm’s creditors pari passu with the individual’s creditors for11Charles D Drake Law of Partnership 3 ed (1983) at 285.12(1879) 4 App Cas 504 (HL).13See ss 9 to 12 of the Partnership Act 1890 (53 & 54 Victch 39).14Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 (c 66) sched 1, s 6. See also Scottish......
  • Selected Judgments
    • Jamaica
    • Telford Georges: A Legal Odyssey
    • 21 November 2008
    ...concede that the rule can be changed in England only by the House of Lords. As long ago as 1879, Lord Cairns, LC in Kendall v Hamilton (1879) 4 App Cas 504 at p. 514 stated:-“Now, I take it to be clear that where an agent contracts in his own name for an undisclosed principal, the person wi......

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