Court of Queen's Bench
group · 2 works · 3 mentions · 5 anchored passages
King's Bench Division · Queen's Bench Division · the Court of Queen's Bench
in the texts
The Law of Torts
Court that decided Potter v. Brown, holding a drawer discharged from liability by a foreign bankruptcy certificate.
Brown, where the drawer of a bill at Baltimore upon England was held discharged from his liability for the non-acceptance of the bill here by a certificate in bankruptcy, under the law of the United States of America, the Court of Queen’s Bench adopting the general rule laid down by Lord Mansfield in Ballantine v.
It was decided by the Court of Queen’s Bench in Lumley v.
Lectures on the Relation between Law and Public Opinion in England
The common-law court whose decisions originated several of the judge-made rules discussed, such as inducement of breach of contract and anticipatory breach.
Just about fifty years ago the Court of Queen’s Bench decided what was then assuredly a doubtful point, that where X induced N to break N’s contract with A, the latter had a right to recover damages from X (Lumley v.
and the Court of Appeal is not bound to follow principles in favour of which nothing can be cited but judgments of the King’s Bench Division or of the older Courts of which the King’s Bench Division is the successor.
Fifty years ago, again, it was doubtful whether, if X had entered into a contract with A, and before the time for performing the contract had arrived, informed A that he would not perform it, A had a right then and there to sue X for breach of contract (Hochster v.