Smith and Another v Smith
| Jurisdiction | South Africa |
| Judge | Lord De Villiers CJ, Innes JA and CG Maasdorp AJA |
| Judgment Date | 25 April 1914 |
| Citation | 1914 AD 257 |
| Hearing Date | 18 March 1914 |
| Court | Appellate Division |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
16 practice notes
-
Cillie v Geldenhuys
...290 (C): approvedOhlsson’s Cape Breweries Ltd v Artesian Well-Boring Co Ltd 1919 CPD125: dictum at 149 appliedSmith and Another v Smith 1914 AD 257: referred toSnijman v Boshoff 1905 ORC 1: referred toUnion Government (Minister of Railways and Harbours) v Marais and Others1920 AD 240 : not ......
-
Van Eck, NO, and Van Rensburg, NO, v Etna Stores
...39.3.4, Schorer, Note 58, and D.39.3.1.12; 39.3.2.9 may be cited in favour of the existence of this exception; and see Smith v Smith (1914 AD 257, at p. 272 in fin.); Union Government v Marais (1920 AD 240, at p. 247). I shall not, however, pursue this matter, which was left open in Marais'......
-
Jajhay v Rent Control Board
...is no entity to alter or reconstruct, cf. Watts v Goodman, 1929 W.L.D. 209; Petersen's case, 1946 W.L.D. 60; Smith and Another v Smith, 1914 AD 257; H Phillips v Barnett, 1922 (1) K.B. 222. See further Havemaan v Myaka, 1948 (1) SA 216. 'Premises' do not refer to a vacant piece of ground, B......
-
De Witt v Knierim
...der Merwe Sakereg 2de uitg op 193 para (iv), 541-3; Snijman v Boshoff 1905 ORC 1; De Bruijn v Louw 1905 ORC 11; Smith and Another v Smith 1914 AD 257; Union Government (Minister of Railways) v Marais and Others 1920 AD 240 op 247, 249; Chetty v Naidoo 1974 (3) SA 13 (A) op 20D-E; A Becker &......
Request a trial to view additional results
16 cases
-
Cillie v Geldenhuys
...290 (C): approvedOhlsson’s Cape Breweries Ltd v Artesian Well-Boring Co Ltd 1919 CPD125: dictum at 149 appliedSmith and Another v Smith 1914 AD 257: referred toSnijman v Boshoff 1905 ORC 1: referred toUnion Government (Minister of Railways and Harbours) v Marais and Others1920 AD 240 : not ......
-
Van Eck, NO, and Van Rensburg, NO, v Etna Stores
...39.3.4, Schorer, Note 58, and D.39.3.1.12; 39.3.2.9 may be cited in favour of the existence of this exception; and see Smith v Smith (1914 AD 257, at p. 272 in fin.); Union Government v Marais (1920 AD 240, at p. 247). I shall not, however, pursue this matter, which was left open in Marais'......
-
Jajhay v Rent Control Board
...is no entity to alter or reconstruct, cf. Watts v Goodman, 1929 W.L.D. 209; Petersen's case, 1946 W.L.D. 60; Smith and Another v Smith, 1914 AD 257; H Phillips v Barnett, 1922 (1) K.B. 222. See further Havemaan v Myaka, 1948 (1) SA 216. 'Premises' do not refer to a vacant piece of ground, B......
-
De Witt v Knierim
...der Merwe Sakereg 2de uitg op 193 para (iv), 541-3; Snijman v Boshoff 1905 ORC 1; De Bruijn v Louw 1905 ORC 11; Smith and Another v Smith 1914 AD 257; Union Government (Minister of Railways) v Marais and Others 1920 AD 240 op 247, 249; Chetty v Naidoo 1974 (3) SA 13 (A) op 20D-E; A Becker &......
Request a trial to view additional results