Smith and Bader v Edwards
| Jurisdiction | South Africa |
| Court | Appellate Division |
| Judge | Innes CJ, Solomon JA and CG Maasdorp JA |
| Judgment Date | 01 June 1917 |
| Citation | 1917 AD 397 |
| Hearing Date | 01 June 1917 |
Innes, C.J.:
This is an application for leave to appeal and for permission to conduct the proceedings in forma pauperis. It would appear that towards the end of 1915 the applicants ploughed over and cultivated part of a farm, of which respondent was lessee. They had done so before, and persisted in their operations in spite of warning. Edwards thereupon demanded compensation; and the case which he made - and which the Court upheld - was that the applicants undertook to pay him 200 hags of mealies. His action was to recover that quantity or £100 in lieu thereof. The evidence showed that in May, 1916, after the assistance of certain assessors had been invoked, the applicants did agree to deliver 200 bags of mealies in full discharge of respondent's claim for compensation. At the trial no evidence was called for the defence upon the merits nor were the facts challenged. The defendants relied on certain technical legal objections...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
3 practice notes
-
On equating ‘mays’ with ‘musts’: When can a discretionary power be interpreted as a mandatory one?
...the light of t he Constitution’ (2012) 75 THRHR at 79 and De Vil le op cit note 1 at 164. 15 Chief Pass O cer, Johannesbur g v Mashamba 1917 AD 397 at 404; Groen ewald v Minister of Fina nce 1927 TPD 679 at 690; Minister of Defen ce v Bourke 1950 (1) SA 393 (A) at 397; Hall v Military Pen ......
-
On equating ‘mays’ with ‘musts’: When can a discretionary power be interpreted as a mandatory one?
...the light of t he Constitution’ (2012) 75 THRHR at 79 and De Vil le op cit note 1 at 164. 15 Chief Pass O cer, Johannesbur g v Mashamba 1917 AD 397 at 404; Groen ewald v Minister of Fina nce 1927 TPD 679 at 690; Minister of Defen ce v Bourke 1950 (1) SA 393 (A) at 397; Hall v Military Pen ......
-
Mavromati v Union Exploration Import (Pty) Ltd
...229). This Court will consider the merits and equities of the application apart from the question in dispute. Smith and Bader v Edwards (1917 AD 397, at p. 399). As to the defence to the sequestration proceedings, it is at best a technical one and no real answer is brought to the claim as s......
1 cases
-
Mavromati v Union Exploration Import (Pty) Ltd
...229). This Court will consider the merits and equities of the application apart from the question in dispute. Smith and Bader v Edwards (1917 AD 397, at p. 399). As to the defence to the sequestration proceedings, it is at best a technical one and no real answer is brought to the claim as s......
2 books & journal articles
-
On equating ‘mays’ with ‘musts’: When can a discretionary power be interpreted as a mandatory one?
...the light of t he Constitution’ (2012) 75 THRHR at 79 and De Vil le op cit note 1 at 164. 15 Chief Pass O cer, Johannesbur g v Mashamba 1917 AD 397 at 404; Groen ewald v Minister of Fina nce 1927 TPD 679 at 690; Minister of Defen ce v Bourke 1950 (1) SA 393 (A) at 397; Hall v Military Pen ......
-
On equating ‘mays’ with ‘musts’: When can a discretionary power be interpreted as a mandatory one?
...the light of t he Constitution’ (2012) 75 THRHR at 79 and De Vil le op cit note 1 at 164. 15 Chief Pass O cer, Johannesbur g v Mashamba 1917 AD 397 at 404; Groen ewald v Minister of Fina nce 1927 TPD 679 at 690; Minister of Defen ce v Bourke 1950 (1) SA 393 (A) at 397; Hall v Military Pen ......
