82,900
edits
Rumpelheimer v Haddock: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|casenote|}}<center>RUMPELHEIMER v HADDOCK<br> | {{a|casenote|}}<center>RUMPELHEIMER v HADDOCK<br> | ||
“Port to Port” <br></center>{{drop|T|his case, involving}} some difficult points of Marine and Traffic Law, was brought to a conclusion to-day. | “Port to Port” <br> From [[A. P. Herbert]]’s unparalleled ''[[Uncommon Law]]''</center>{{drop|T|his case, involving}} some difficult points of Marine and Traffic Law, was brought to a conclusion to-day. | ||
{{indent| | {{indent| | ||
The President of the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division ( who had the assistance of an assessor) giving judgment. This action was originally instituted in the King’s Bench, but, Mr Justice Juice holding that the issues disclosed pertained to the Law of Admiralty, although the ground of the claim was damage to a motor-car, the case was withdrawn from the King's Bench List and referred to this Court. | The President of the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division ( who had the assistance of an assessor) giving judgment. This action was originally instituted in the King’s Bench, but, Mr Justice Juice holding that the issues disclosed pertained to the Law of Admiralty, although the ground of the claim was damage to a motor-car, the case was withdrawn from the King's Bench List and referred to this Court. | ||