 | Thomas Peake - 1804 - 534 페이지
...which came collaterally in queftion, though within their jurifdiclion; nor of any matter incidentally cognizable; nor of any matter to be inferred by argument from the judgment. Judgments which are merely on queftions of property between party and party are, as A^e, 38. M7aselfe... | |
 | Thomas Bayly Howell - 1814 - 730 페이지
...the same parties, coining incidentally in question in another court, for a different purpose. -But neither the judgment of a concurrent or exclusive jurisdiction is evidence, of any matter which came collaterally in question, though within their jurisdiction ; nor of any matter incidentally cognizable... | |
 | Samuel March Phillipps - 1815 - 600 페이지
...which came collaterally in question, though within their jurisdiction, nor of any matter incidentally cognizable, nor of any matter to be inferred by argument from the judgment. (2) But, although such sentences are conclusive, and cannot be impeached from within, yet, like all... | |
 | 1816 - 724 페이지
...between the same parties, coming incidentally in question in another court, for a different purpose. But neither the judgment of a concurrent or exclusive jurisdiction is evidence, of any matter which came collaterally in question, though within their jurisdiction ; nor of any matter incidentally cognizable... | |
 | 1816 - 742 페이지
...which came collaterally in question, though within their jurisdiction ; nor of any matter incidentally cognizable ; nor of any matter to be inferred by argument from the judgment. Upon the subject of marriage, the Spiritual Court has the sole and exclusive cognizance of questioning... | |
 | Francis Buller - 1817 - 684 페이지
...between the same partics coming incidentally in question in another court for a different purpose, yet neither the judgment of a concurrent or exclusive jurisdiction is evidence of any matter which came collaterally in question, though within their jurisdiction, nur of any matter incidentally cognizable,... | |
 | United States. Circuit Court (1st Circuit), John Gallison - 1817 - 624 페이지
...between the same parties, coming incidentally in question in another court for a different purpose. But neither the judgment of a concurrent or exclusive jurisdiction is evidence of any Harvey vs. Richards. matter, which came collaterally in question, though within their jurisdiction,... | |
 | William Cruise - 1818 - 648 페이지
...between the same parties, coming incidentally in question in another court for a different purpose. But neither the judgment of A concurrent or exclusive jurisdiction is evidence of any matter which came collaterally in question, though within their jurisdiction; nor of any matter incidentally cognizable;... | |
 | Matthew Hale - 1820 - 582 페이지
...between the same parties, coming incidentally in question in another court, for a different purpose. But neither the judgment of a concurrent or exclusive jurisdiction, is evidence of any matter which carte collaterally in question, though within their jurisdiction; nor of any matter incidentally cognizable... | |
 | Matthew Hale - 1820 - 580 페이지
...which came collaterally in question, though within their jurisdiction; nor of any matter incidentally cognizable; nor of any matter to be inferred by argument from the judgment. Upon the subject of marriage, the spiritual court has the sole and exclusive cognizance of questioning... | |
| |
But neither the judgment of a concurrent or exclusive jurisdiction is evidence of any matter which came collaterally in question, though within their jurisdiction, nor of any matter incidentally cognizable, nor of any matter to be inferred by argument... 
