 | 1896 - 1218 페이지
...Chief Justice L)e Gray, in the Duchess of Kingston Case, 20 How. State Tr. 578, it is said (page 142) : "Neither the judgment of a concurrent or exclusive...though within their jurisdiction, nor of any matter incidentally cognizable, nor of any matter to be inferred by argument from the judgment." In the same... | |
 | India, Tarapada Banerji - 1896 - 738 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,... | |
 | Illinois. Appellate Court, Edwin Burritt Smith, Martin L. Newell - 1898 - 734 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." Citing 1 Phillips on Evidence, EV 321, and Greenleaf on Evidence, 565. TENNEY, MCDONNELL, COFFEEN &... | |
 | 1899 - 1038 페이지
...tween the same parties, coming Incidentally In question In another court for a different purpose. But neither the Judgment of a concurrent or exclusive...though within their Jurisdiction, nor of any matter Incidentally cognizable, nor of any matter to be inferred by argument from the Judgment' 2 Smith, Lead.... | |
 | Abraham Clark Freeman - 1899 - 1078 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...though within their jurisdiction, nor of any matter incidentally cognizable, nor of any matter to be inferred by argument from the judgment': 2 Smith's... | |
 | Abraham Clark Freeman - 1899 - 1082 페이지
...another court for a different purpose. But neither the judgment of a concurrent or exclusivejurisdiction is evidence of any matter which comes collaterally...though within their jurisdiction, nor of any matter incidentally cognizable, nor of any matter to be inferred by argument from the judgment': 2 Smith's... | |
 | 1899 - 914 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 conies collaterally in •question, though within their jurisdiction, iior of any matter incidentally... | |
 | Herbert Broom - 1900 - 888 페이지
...Jfrigkt, 10 A. & E. 763; Magralh v. Hardy, 4 Biug. NC 782 ; Fewsham Emerson, 11 Excli. 385. 8. " But neither the judgment of a concurrent or exclusive jurisdiction is evidence of any matter which came collaterally in question, though within the jurisdiction, nor of any matter incidentally cognisable,... | |
| |
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... 
