 | 1848 - 562 стор.
...expressed thus :—" The old rule I ordinary courts are bound to obey the process delifor jurisdiction is, that nothing shall be intended to be out of the jurisdiction of the Superior Courts but that which specially appears to be so ; nothing islntended to be within the... | |
 | Great Britain. Court of King's Bench, Edmund Saunders - 1845 - 968 стор.
...is bad in an inferior court, as it has been oftentimes adjudged. And the rule for jurisdiction is, that nothing shall be intended to be out of the jurisdiction of a superior court, but that which specially appears to be so; and, on the contrary, nothing shall be intended to be within... | |
 | New York (State). Supreme Court, John Lansing Wendell - 1846 - 718 стор.
...footing as they would on error from a superior court. They then add and the rule for jurisdiction is, that nothing shall be intended to be out of the jurisdiction of a superior court, but that which specially appears to be so, and on the contrary nothing shall be intended to be within... | |
 | Alabama. Supreme Court - 1841 - 912 стор.
...adjudged bad, and properly quashed. The gem al rule in respect to the jurisdiction of courts seems to be. "that nothing shall be intended to be out of the jurisdiction of a superior court, but that which specially appears to be so ; and on the contrary, nothing will be intended to be within... | |
 | John Frederick Archbold - 1847 - 314 стор.
...the establishment of inferior courts, it being an established rule of our common law, that,al though nothing shall be intended to be out of the jurisdiction of a superior court, but that which specially appears to be so, yet, on the other hand, nothing shall be intended to be... | |
 | California. Supreme Court - 1851 - 672 стор.
...courts of record, although inferior courts according to the constitution of the state, the law is, that nothing shall be intended to be out of the jurisdiction of such courts, but that which especially appears to be so ; and, on the contrary, nothing shall be intended... | |
 | Michigan. Supreme Court, Randolph Manning, George C. Gibbs, Thomas McIntyre Cooley, Elijah W. Meddaugh, William Jennison, Hovey K. Clarke, Hoyt Post, Henry Allen Chaney, William Dudley Fuller, John Adams Brooks, Marquis B. Eaton, Herschel Bouton Lazell, James M. Reasoner, Richard W. Cooper - 1901 - 864 стор.
...than that accorded to those of inferior tribunals. Hurd, Hab. Corp. 367 et seq. The general rule is that nothing shall be intended to be out of the jurisdiction of a superior court, except that which especially appears to be. Id. 367. We find it unnecessary to determine whether this... | |
 | 1852 - 1052 стор.
...made by persons who were creditors of the bankrupt. The doctrine laid down in Peacock v. Bell (2) is, that nothing shall be intended to be out of the jurisdiction of a superior, or within the jurisdiction of an inferior Court. The cases of Everard v. Paterson (3) and Williams... | |
 | Edmund Hatch Bennett, Chauncey Smith - 1858 - 680 стор.
...who were creditors of the bankrupt. The doctrine laid down in Peacock v. Bell, 1 Wms. Saund. 74, is, that nothing shall be intended to be out of the jurisdiction of a superior, or within the jurisdiction of an inferior court. The cases of Everard v. Paterson, 6 Taunt. 645, and... | |
| |
the rule for jurisdiction is that nothing shall be intended to be out of the jurisdiction of a superior court but that which specially appears to be so... 
