Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
  1. Home
  2. Journals
  3. The Cambridge Law Journal
  4. Content listing
Journal Home

Refine listing

Refine listing

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals: Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies: Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

9363 results in The Cambridge Law Journal

Page 441 of 469

  • Three Cases on Possession

  • A. L. Goodhart
  • Journal:
    The Cambridge Law Journal / Volume 3 / Issue 2 / July 1928
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    16 January 2009, pp. 195-208
    Print publication:
    July 1928

  • In the recent case, Great Western Ry. Co. v. Owners of S.S. Mostyn, Viscount Dunedin said: ‘Now, when any tribunal is bound by the judgment of another Court, either superior or co-ordinate, it is, of course, bound by the judgment itself. And if from the opinions delivered it is clear—as is the case in most instances—what the ratio decidendi was which led to the judgment, then that ratio decidendi is also binding. But if it is not clear, then I do not think it is part of the tribunal's duty to spell out with great difficulty a ratio decidendi in order to be bound by it.’ In other words, not only the judgment itself, but also the grounds on which the judgment was reached, are binding. This proposition must, of course, be understood to include the further rule that only those reasons are binding which were material to the decision of the point at issue. If they were material they constitute a precedent; if they were not material they are merely obiter dicta.

  • Parliament and the Dominions: A Retrospect

  • R. L. Schuyler
  • Journal:
    The Cambridge Law Journal / Volume 3 / Issue 2 / July 1928
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    16 January 2009, pp. 209-238
    Print publication:
    July 1928

  • A few years ago a distinguished constitutional historian reopened what had once been a burning issue of political controversy, the question of the validity of the authority claimed and exercised by the British parliament over the American colonies. There had always been a difference of opinion respecting the oppressiveness of those acts of parliament against which Americans protested during the years preceding the Declaration of Independence, but with regard to their legality, as determined by precedent, there had come to be a virtual consensus of historical opinion, British and American alike, that parliament was right, and that those who denied its legal authority over the colonies were wrong. What may bo called the orthodox view was thus expressed by Osgood in 1907:

    British lawyers and officials at home and those who represented the home government in the colonies held that, in law if not in fact, the authority of Great Britain within the dominions was complete. … They held that the colonists were in principle as completely subject to parliament … as were the local jurisdictions within England itself. In this they were technically correct and were quite in harmony with the principles of English law.

Page 441 of 469