TITLE OF THE CASE Gilford Motor Co. vs. Horne(1933)1Ch. 935 FACTS OF THE CASE Mr EB Horne was formerly a managing director of the Gilford Motor Co Ltd. He agreed in writing (clause 9) to not solicit customers of the company when he left employment. Then he was fired. He set up his own business and undercut their prices. Then he got legal advice saying that he was probably acting in breach of contract. So he set up a company‚ JM Horne & Co Ltd‚ in which his wife and a friend called Mr Howard were
Premium Appeal Contract Court
by the discharge of sewage by the defendant council into oyster beds. The plaintiff was an oyster merchant who had for many years been in occupation of the oyster beds which had been artificially constructed on the foreshore‚ which belonged to the lord of the manor. The plaintiff excluded everybody from the oyster beds‚ and nobody interfered with his occupation of the oyster beds or his removal and sale of oysters from them. * Held: He could sue the defendant Council in nuisance‚ notwithstanding
Premium Tort Nuisance Complaint
1907 FACTS: The defendant is the business adviser of the plaintiff‚ Marciana Canon and about the same time‚ Felisa Nepomuceno‚ the other plaintiff‚ had an unsecured debt due her of 500 pesos from one Marcelo Leaño. The debtor proposed to give her a deed of conditional sale to a certain tract of land in consideration of 2‚000 pesos‚ she to be credited with 500 pesos on the purchase price and that to advance the balance of 1‚500 pesos; that knowing that the defendant had in his hands that amount
Premium Plaintiff Defendant Complaint
authority was held applicable to such a case also. H owned a hotel. He sold it to the defendants‚ who retained him as manager. The licence continued to be held in his name‚ which remained over the door. The plaintiffs supplied cigars to H‚ to whom alone they gave credit‚ believing him to be the owner. They had never heard of the defendants‚ who had forbidden H to buy cigars on credit. Upon learning that the defendants were the owners of the hotel the plaintiffs sued them for the amount outstanding. The
Premium Legal terms Plaintiff Business law
Purpose of Legal Documents This assignment is to correctly identify and briefly explain the following types of legal documents and their purpose(s) in their respective case(s). Document Example #1: Memorandum of Law - This document relates to the case of Jackson v. Centerville Diner. The purpose of this document is to provide an overview of the facts of the case‚ the issue(s) at hand‚ a summary of the case and the relevant laws and their potential application to the case. The conclusion of
Premium Pleading Law Plaintiff
address‚ or received by them‚ or brought to their notice‚ or read by them.1 This rule‚ laid down in Adam v. Lindsell in 1818. It explained that if the defendants were not bound by their offer when accepted by the plaintiffs till the answer was received‚ then the plaintiffs ought not to be bound till after they had received the notification that the defendants had received their answer and assented to it.2 In this case‚ the contract be only be made unless Ada checks her voicemail before the letter arrived
Premium Contract Plaintiff Offer and acceptance
year‚ or P250.00 per month. On September 26‚ 2001‚ complainant filed a complaint for forcible entry against therein defendants docketed as Civil Case No. R-45146‚ entitled John Hegna v. Mr. & Mrs. Eliseo Panaguinip‚ with the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC)‚ Branch 8 of Cebu City. In said complaint‚ he alleged that in about the second week of March 1996‚ therein defendants entered the vacant portion of the leased premises by means of force‚ intimidation‚ threat‚ strategy or stealth; destroyed
Premium Defendant Prima facie Plaintiff
Respondent‚ vs. FEATHER RIVER ANESTHESIA MEDICAL GROUP: Appellant‚ Defendants and Respondents. APPEAL from the judgment of the Superior Court of Sutter County‚ Perry Parker‚ Judge. Reversed‚ in part; remanded‚ in part; and affirmed‚ in part. Weintraub Genshlea & Sproul‚ Rosemary Kelley‚ Charles L. Post‚ and William S. Jue‚ for Plaintiff Nosrat Khajavi. Biegler Opper & Ortiz‚ Robert P. Biegler and Jesse S. Ortiz‚ III‚ for Defendant Feather River Anesthesia Medical Group. Wilke‚ Fleury‚ Hoffelt‚
Premium Physician Medicine Employment
The real property was subject to a prior mortgage in favor of La Orden de Dominicos or PP. Predicadores de la Provinciadel Santisimo Rosario‚ hence it is made a party defendant. The promissory is long past due which compel the plaintiff to file an action against the defendants. The lower court rendered judgment against the defendants GabrielaAndrea de Coster y Roxas‚ Jean M. Poizat and J. M. Poizat andCo. and made them liable‚jointly and severally‚ for the payment of P292‚000‚ with interest at the
Premium Legal terms Plaintiff Pleading
Caleb Duncan 02/17/2011 JULIA M. O’ROURKE‚ Plaintiff‚ Appellee‚ v. CITY OF PROVIDENCE‚ Defendant‚ Appellant. 07-14-1997 Issue: Plaintiff was a fire fighter for the City of Providence from 1992 to June 30‚ 1995. Plaintiff filed a five count complaint asserting hostile work environment and R.I. Gen. Law 28-5-24.1 (Rhode Island Fair Employment Practices Act); and disparate treatment. She also alleged violation of her equal rights and sought damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Facts: Until
Premium Complaint Plaintiff Defendant