On this page
-
Text (1)
-
886 kEGAi; notes;
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
-^ ¦ In The Present And Future Numbers O...
t > ' Scotland be a forei is , for country most purposes andalthoug , con h sidere the d holder by the of law the of Grea Eng t land Seal
o gn , , important is Lord Hi executive gh Chancellor functions of Grea with t respect Britain , to and mag has istrates by statute and similar some whatever in
p that ersons country in Scotland The , Court yet he of has Session no judicial is the tribunal jurisdiction before which all
. matters decree of relating the En to lish Scotch Court minors of Chancery must is be thus adjudicated no more entitled upon . to A g
Eng be ob land eye . d in But Scotland though th the an judicatures a decree of of the both Court countries of Session are is thus in indeendent of each other , their judgments on matters in which they
iiave p a sort of common jurisdiction will be treated by each other realit by with Lord respect con Chancellor trary and to consideration this Cranworth doctrine . , . appears The In case that at of case first _Datvson an sig American ht v , . Jay t is , decide infant not in d
¦ who had y , a guardian regularly appointed by the Supreme Court at , NYorkwas brought to Englandand Lord Cranworth refused
to direct that , the infant should be , delivered up . This case was strongly relied on by the defendant ' s counsel land in the with present the case .
_rence guardian ! But it of appears , the the guardian validity that the of ori infant whose ginall came y appointment appointed to Eng , and "was it doubtful was al another concur , that
in wished in Eng America land to get . back She In all was the such , i moreover nfan cases t after , of a he British a had conflict been subject of liv jurisdictions ing , al sev thoug er y b ears orn the
. , CJourt is bound to look solely to the interest of the infant , and _direct most benefici him to al be for given him to . As that regards guardian a conflict whose protection between Eng will lish be
of and Lords Scotc is h t an rib ultimate unals , it Court need onl of y A be ppeal temp for orary both , because countries the * But House , if from
- the p erroneous ronounced judgment , or by even of a the i comp nequi House letely table of foreign Lords t may differ be judicature , it in cannot any , t be case hen affected , h matter ow , ever one by
the de the te decision fact rmined that differen of a forei the t gn House ly . judicature In of the Lords present has , will in case respect operate there to to the is the no same permanent doubt that ,
benefit competent of the to take infant care in . p of lacing his education him under and the entrance control of into a gentleman the "world ,
; As Lady Elizabeth Moore had set at nought the decree of the { English Court of Chancery , there was also that additional take reason
that why the the supreme respective tribunal jurisdictions of the United of subordinate Kingdom courts should should care be
. duly respected by each of these tribunals . Anderson vJElsworthDecided hthe Vice-Chancellor Stuartand
. reported . hi the _. " Weekly Reporter y , " vol . 9 , p . 888 . , .
* _- . Although , it is commonly supposed that a little law , like an incom-
886 Kegai; Notes;
886 _kEGAi _; notes ;
-
-
Citation
-
English Woman’s Journal (1858-1864), Feb. 1, 1862, page 386, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/ewj/issues/ewj_01021862/page/26/
-