Prince v Prince
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1950 |
| Year | 1950 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
9 cases
-
BT v BT (Rehearing: Procedure)
...of the question of whether the Judge went wrong in accepting one set of witnesses and not accepting another." In Prince v Prince [1951] P 71 the Court of Appeal at pp 77/78 used the word "error" as meaning or including the making of an incorrect inference as to the truth from the conflictin......
- Thynne v Thynne
-
Corbett v Corbett
...most forceful judicial utterance upon this particular matter comes from the decision of this Court delivered by myself in the case of Prince v. Prince, reported in 1951 Probate at page 71. That was a case in which the Court had to consider the precise construction of rule 36(1) of the prese......
-
Daniels v Daniels
...not referred to or if referred to was apparently treated as subject to the divorce rule, r. 62” above mentioned. (Per EVERSHED, M.R. in Prince v. Prince [1950] 2 All E.R. 375 at p. 378). The foregoing decisions lead me to the conclusion that the practice in the Probate, Divorce and Admiralt......
Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
-
Ricardo on Agricultural Improvements: a Note
...‘rent is always the differencebetween the produce obtained by the employment of two equal quantities ofcapital and labour’ (Ricardo, 1951, p. 71; emphases added). This definitionimplies that rent is paid post factum. Contrary to his claim, Ricardo did not,however, ‘always’ define rent in this......