National Bank of Australasia v Morris

JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
Judgment Date1892
Year1892
Date1892
CourtPrivy Council
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
6 cases
  • Rex v Patz
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...that the goods were stolen, provides this mens rea; Gardiner and Lansdown (supra, at 31); National Bank of Australasia v Morris (L.R. 1892, A.C. 287; The Queen v Wright (11 S.C. 84).; Rex v Nel (1916 CPD 703 at 705); Rex v Albow (1910 CPD 320 at 323); belief that the property was stolen is ......
  • Queensland Bacon Pty Ltd v Rees
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • Invalid date
  • 安樂影片有限公司 訴 影豐行有限公司
    • Hong Kong
    • High Court (Hong Kong)
    • November 30, 2004
    ...25. 修氏法律字典引述了樞密院案例National Bank of Australasia v. Morris (譯名:大洋洲國民銀行訴莫理斯)[1892] AC 287。該案為破產案件,樞密院指法院毋須仔細研究債權人在取得款項時是否知道債務人無力償還債務(insolvent) 26. 本席傾向同意謝大律師指答辯人是知道証物P3號為侵犯版權的複製品的基本事實,只是他不知道《版權條例》第35(4)條的條文,並非不知道証物P3號為侵犯版權的複製...
  • Yu Yau Tak v Commissioner Of Police And Another
    • Hong Kong
    • Court of Appeal (Hong Kong)
    • April 4, 2001
    ...in the three cases that Mr Westbrook, for the respondents, has drawn to our attention. 23. In National Bank of Australia v Morris [1892] AC 287, the Privy Council was construing an Australian statute which provided that payment by a debtor to a creditor before the sequestration of the debto......
  • Get Started for Free