Rebecca Darling
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
| Judgment Date | 25 November 1845 |
| Date | 25 November 1845 |
English Reports Citation: 135 E.R. 980
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
In The Matter of Rebecca Darling
in the matter of eebecca darling. Nov. 25, 1845. The court allowed an acknowledgment to be received and filed under the 3 & 4 W. 4, c. 74, s. 85, where the affidavit verifying the same was sworn before " The Provisional British Consul for the Society Islands," it appearing that there was no notary or any other official. person before whom it could have been sworn, within many hundred miles. Channell, Serjt., moved to enlarge the time for returning a commission sent out to Tahiti, one of the Society Islands, in the South Seas, to take the acknowledgment of Rebecca, the wife of David Darling, and for leave to file the commission, certificate of acknowledgment, and affidavit verifying the same. The commission was directed to be...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 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
Start Your 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
Start Your 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
Start Your 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
Start Your 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
Start Your Free Trial
3 cases
-
Browning v War Office
...gifts made to him, Rodpath v. Belfast Corporation, 1947 N. I., 167 approved by this court in Peacock v. Amusemont Company, 1954, 2. C. B., 347: or by reason of insurance benfits which he has bought with his own money, see Bradburn v. Great Northern Railway, L. R., 10 Ex., 1: or by reason of......
-
Peart v Hughes
...affidavit need not go on to state that there is no dispute as to boundaries: Martin v. Granger, 13 Law J., N. S., C. P. 176. 980 IN KE DARLING 2 C. B. 347. retained eight days without objection. The negotiations pending between the parties would also be enough to preclude the defendant from......
-
Re Anna Booth and Others
..." the court required an affidavit shewing the identity of Judge M'Eoberts and Samuel M'Koberts. 5C. B.(N.S.)5. LEADER V. HOME WOODIn re Darling, '2 C. B. 347, that [541] the excuse was amply sufficient to warrant the court in enlarging the time for the return, The above objection was common......
