The Practice of the Court of Chancery for Ontario : With Some Observations On the Pleadings in That Court
The book The Practice of the Court of Chancery for Ontario : With Some Observations On the Pleadings in That Court was written by author Leggo, William, 1822-1888 Here you can read free online of The Practice of the Court of Chancery for Ontario : With Some Observations On the Pleadings in That Court book, rate and share your impressions in comments. If you don't know what to write, just answer the question: Why is The Practice of the Court of Chancery for Ontario : With Some Observations On the Pleadings in That Court a good or bad book?
What reading level is The Practice of the Court of Chancery for Ontario : With Some Observations On the Pleadings in That Court book?
To quickly assess the difficulty of the text, read a short excerpt:
132; Taylor v. Sheppard, lY. & C. Ex. 271, 279; Uankeyy. Teninu, 2 Cox. Yi; Isaac V. Humpage, 1 Ves. J. 427 : 3 Bro. C. C. 463 ; Bateman v. WiUoe, 1 Sch. & Lef. 205. (t Stephenson-^. Wilson, 2 Vera. 325; Blachhallv. Combs, 2 P. Wms. 70; Kemp v. Mackrell, 2 Ves. S. 579; Hohsorthy v. Mortloch,! Cox, 141; Great Western Railway Company v Cripps, 5 Hare, 91. 7 Ware v. Hnnrood, 14 Vea. 81 ; Bullock v. Chapman, 2 Do i!. & S 211 : 12 Jur. 738. INJUNCTIONS AND BESTRAINING OEDEES. 1639 An important disti...nction has frequently been attempted to be drawn, between an error or mistake in fact, and an error or mistake in Law. With resjiect to the former, it has been clearly settled, that where a deed has been executed, or money paid, from ignorance of a fact, or under an erroneous impression respecting it, a Court of Equity will relieve ; but there seems to have been some difference upon the question whether it would do so, when an act has been done under a mistake of law.^ With regard to the cases on this head, in which relief has been given, some of them are attended with circumstances of fraud or circumvention, and others of them lie so much on the borders of the two kinds of errors, that they are to be classed amongst instances of errors of fact, rather than errors of law f but, in Pullen v.
User Reviews: