 | 1886 - 910 페이지
...judgment of a court of concurrent or exclusive jurisdiction is evidence of any matter incidentally cognizable, nor of any matter to be inferred by argument from the judgment." In speaking of the rule and the distinctions given in the Duchess of Kingston's Case (only a portion... | |
 | 1912 - 1182 페이지
...judgment of a court of concurrent nor exclusive jurisdiction is evidence of any matter Incidentally cognizable, nor of any matter to be inferred by argument from the judgment." This rule, derived from the Duchess of Kingston's Case, has been accepted and applied in this state... | |
 | 1907 - 1350 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,... | |
 | Melville Madison Bigelow - 1890 - 864 페이지
...the question should there arise incidentally. The very next sentence shows this conclusively. ' 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,... | |
 | Nebraska. Supreme Court, David Allen Campbell, Guy Ashton Brown, Lorenzo Crounse, Walter Alber Leese, Lee Herdmen, Henry Clay Lindsay, Henry Paxon Stoddart - 1891 - 960 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 incidently cognizable,... | |
 | David Sutherland - 1891 - 782 페이지
...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 questioo. "though within their jurisdiction, nor of " any matter incidentally... | |
 | David Sutherland - 1891 - 768 페이지
..." collaterally in question, though within "their jurisdiction, nor of any matter in•' cidentally cognizable, nor of any matter to " be inferred by argument from the j rfcíg" ment." It is unnecessary for me in this case to determine whether the matter did or did not... | |
 | Frank Sumner Rice - 1892 - 832 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,... | |
 | Simon Greenleaf - 1892 - 888 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. " 3 (a) « Bradley «._ Bradley, 2 Fairf. 367 ; Woodruff v. Woodruff, Id. 475. 1 20 Howvll's St. Tr.... | |
 | Irving Browne - 1893 - 608 페이지
...also essential to the rendition of the judgment. In Caperton v. Schmidt, 26 Cal. 494, it is said: ' Neither the judgment of a concurrent or exclusive jurisdiction is evidence of any matter which only comes collaterally in question, though within the jurisdiction ; nor of any matter incidentally... | |
| |
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... 
