| Law - 1843 - 506 pages
...of limitations are those technical and continuing trusts which are not cognizable at law, but fall within the proper, peculiar, and exclusive jurisdiction of a court of equity. Finney v. Cochran, 1 Watts & Sergeant, 112. MASTER AND SERVANT. (Criminal n/ence.) Faithful service... | |
| New Jersey. Court of Chancery - Law reports, digests, etc - 1879 - 846 pages
...not apply to actions founded on a direct or strict trust, such as are not cognizable at law, but fall within the proper, peculiar and exclusive jurisdiction of a court of equity. This is the rule as stated Partridge v. Wells. by Chancellor Kent (Kane v. Bloidgood, 7 Johns. Ch.... | |
| Georgia. Supreme Court - Equity - 1850 - 692 pages
...be said, that this is a case of a direct trust, purely technical, not cognizable at law, but falling within the proper, peculiar and exclusive jurisdiction of a Court of Equity; and, consequently, one not subject to the presumption of satisfaction or payment or waiver. 2 Mylne If Kecne,... | |
| Georgia. Supreme Court - Equity - 1850 - 660 pages
...action. [16.] This being a case of direct and purely technical trust, not cognizable at law, but falling within the proper, peculiar and exclusive jurisdiction of a Court of Equity, is not subject to the Statute of Limitations. [17.] On a motion to dismiss a bill for mint of equity,... | |
| John Barnard Byles - Negotiable instruments - 1853 - 664 pages
...122. Trusts which are not barred are those continuing trusts which are not cognisable at law, but fall within the proper, peculiar and exclusive jurisdiction of a court of equity. Finney v. Cockran, 1 Watts & Serg- 112. (2) An acknowledgment by an executor or administrator will... | |
| Joseph Kinnicut Angell - Limitation of actions - 1861 - 724 pages
...continuing trusts to which we have already referred, and •which arc not cognizable at law, but fall within the proper, peculiar, and exclusive jurisdiction of a court of equity. In all cases of trusts, he makes it appear, that, whether or not they are affected by that statute... | |
| Joseph Kinnicut Angell - Limitation of actions - 1876 - 772 pages
...continuing trusts to which we have already referred, and which are not cognizable at law, but fall within the proper, peculiar, and exclusive jurisdiction of a court of equity. In all cases of trusts, he makes it appear, that, whether or not they are affected by that statute... | |
| Seymour Dwight Thompson - Corporation law - 1879 - 584 pages
...view that such a case is one of "direct trust, purely technical, not cognizable at law, but falling within the proper, peculiar, and exclusive jurisdiction of a court of equity ; and, consequently, one not subject to the presumption of payment, or satisfaction, or waiver."' The Supreme... | |
| John Hoff Stewart - Equity - 1879 - 826 pages
...not apply to actions founded on a direct or strict trust, such as are not cognizable at law, but fall within the proper, peculiar and exclusive jurisdiction of a court of equity. This is the rule as stated Partridge v. Wells. by Chancellor Kent (Kane v. Blo-xfyood, 7 Johns. Ch.... | |
| |