The Punjab Record, 18권1883 |
기타 출판본 - 모두 보기
자주 나오는 단어 및 구문
accept the appeal accused Additional Commissioner adoption adverse possession agreement alleged Amritsar Appellate Court APPELLATE SIDE application appointed award Bhera cause of action Chief Court Civil Procedure Code claim clause co-parceners Commissioner's contract custom dated debt decision decree deed defendant defendant's delivered Deputy Commissioner dismissed district board ELSMIE enquiry entitled evidence execution Extra Assistant Commissioner facts Full Bench gift Government ground heir held Hindu Hindu Law Indian Penal Code instance Jats Judicial Assistant jurisdiction Khan Lahore Division lambardar land landlord Limitation Act lower Appellate Court Magistrate ment mortgage mortgagor Mussammat opinion parties payment person plaintiff possession present suit proprietors proved provisions Punjab Record purchaser question Rajputs RATTIGAN reference regard registered remand revenue right of occupancy right of pre-emption rule Second appeal Section Sessions Judge Settlement Singh Small Cause Court SMYTH sued sufficiently appear tahsil Tahsildar Tenancy Act tenant tion valid Versus village widow
인기 인용구
84 페이지 - The party producing a writing as genuine which has been altered, or appears to have been altered, after its execution, in a part material to the question in dispute, must account for the appearance or alteration. He may show that the alteration was made by another, without his concurrence, or was made with the consent of the parties affected by it, or otherwise properly or innocently made, or that the alteration did not change the meaning or language of the instrument. If he do that, he may give...
362 페이지 - That rule is, however, inapplicable to cases in which the act which occasions the injury is one which the contractor was employed to do ; nor, by a parity of reasoning, to cases in which the contractor is entrusted with the performance of a duty incumbent upon his employer, and neglects its fulfilment, whereby an injury is occasioned.
360 페이지 - On the other hand, a person causing something to be done, the doing of which casts on him a duty, cannot escape from the responsibility attaching on him of seeing that duty performed by delegating it to a contractor.
343 페이지 - That the taking of a legal estate after notice of a prior right, makes a person a mala fide purchaser; and not, that he is not a purchaser for a valuable consideration in every other respect.
xlv 페이지 - The test was whether the defendant honestly believed in the existence of a state of facts which, if it had existed, would have afforded a justification under the statute (Roberts v.
341 페이지 - That was rightly determined ; for it was sufficient to put the purchaser upon inquiry, that he was informed the estate was not in the actual possession of the person with whom he contracted ; that he could not transfer the ownership and possession at the same time; that there were interests as to the extent and terms of which it was his duty to inquire.
362 페이지 - Unquestionably no one can be made liable for an act or breach of duty, unless it be traceable to himself or his servant or servants in the course of his or their employment. Consequently, if an independent contractor is employed to do a lawful act, and in the course of the work he or his servants commit some casual act of wrong or negligence, the employer is not answerable.
362 페이지 - ... open, and to close it when the coals were all put in. The act of opening it was the act of the employer, though done through the agency of the coal merchant ; and the defendant, having thereby caused danger, was bound to take reasonable means to prevent mischief. The performance of this duty he omitted ; and the fact of his having entrusted it to a person who also neglected it, furnishes no excuse, either in good sense or law.
360 페이지 - Ever since Quarman v. Burnett (1840), 6 M. & W. 499, it has been considered settled law that one employing another is not liable for his collateral negligence, unless the relation of master and servant existed between them. So that a person employing a contractor to do work is not liable for the negligence of that contractor or his servants.