. La loi Montréal rapports [microform]. Law Reports, digests, etc ; Droit ; jurisprudence ; Droit.  !'' I : r^ IMS. MeOibbon BwUrd. } J' e^ ^â ' r', â ¢ â¢J'MQNTRBAItLAW BEPOBTS 482. Ramsay, J. (rflfM.): *â ¢' c'est une tootion à modifier la notice d'un arrêt de la dernier terme de cette Cour, sur le^round que les juges- ne voulait pas dire ce qu'affirme sans équivoque. Comme je n'ai pas siéger en l'affaire, je ne pouvais pas bien inscrivez-vous m accordant la motion, car j'ai aucun moyen de savoir ce qu'il devait être autre) que ce que j'apprends à partir de l'enregistrement authentique mais je suis d'avis que la Cour a

• Contributeur: The Book Worm / Alamy Banque D'Images
• ID de l’image: REMTW2
• Taille du fichier: 7,1 MB (310,7 KB Téléchargement compressé)
• Autorisations: Modèle - non | Propriété - non
• Dimensions: 4022 x 621 px | 34,1 x 5,3 cm | 13,4 x 2,1 inches | 300dpi

Informations supplémentaires

Cette image appartient au domaine public, ce qui signifie que le droit d’auteur a expiré ou que le titulaire du droit d’auteur a renoncé à ses droits. Les frais facturés par Alamy couvrent l’accès à la copie haute résolution de l’image.

Cette image peut avoir des imperfections car il s’agit d’une image historique ou de reportage.

. The Montreal law reports [microform]. Law reports, digests, etc; Law; Jurisprudence; Droit. !'' I: r^ IMS. MeOibbon BwUrd. } i' tH^ ^â ' r', ⢠â¢I 482 MQNTRBAItLAW BEPOBTS. Ramsay, J. (rflfM.):â *â¢' This is a tootion to amend the record of a judgment of the last term of this Court, on the^round that the judges- did not mean to say what the record unmistakably says. As I did not sit in the case, I could not properly join m granting the motion, for I have no independent means of knowing what was intended othet than what I learn from the authentic record But I am of opinion that the Court has no jurisdiction to alter it« judgment when the- whole m^ter is complete and posted up. In this case the judgment has been entered up, the record has ^e^ sent down and part of the costs hate been paid. There is no precedent so far as I know going to the extent of the judgment about to fte rendered. There is doubtless mucU to be said in favour of iU convenience of correct- ing error at all times; but that convenience will be out- weighed by the inconvenience of allowing the courts after their functi^sb:; are at an end to disturb the rights which seem to bfiSittled for ever by their judgment. However plausible the pretext, it is establishing^arbttrary rufeforlawandorder. I am therefore to refuBe the motion. , Cross, J.:â /' ' , ;':; .- ; â â â â -'""-â '---^r 'i;/ - This case comes up on a petition to correct a clerical error in a judgment rendered by this Court on the 25th of September last. While we are aware of the danger of making changes in judgments, it seems to us that.the application in this case should hi granted. I base my opinion on two precedents, lit McGilliway S^ Montreal Assurance Co., the case lay over for six months or a year before the judgment was corrected, but the Privy Council had no doubt as to their power to correct their order. In Rattri^ ^ Young the Supreme Court chi^iged their judg- 5 ment and allowed mor^ than the first judgm

Recherche dans la banque de photos par tags

• books
• booksubjectdroit
• booksubjectjurisprudence
• booksubjectlaw