法律教育網

法律英語

2019瑞達法考客觀題學習包

考試內容 報名條件 報名時間 報名方法

成績查詢 考試時間 分 數 線 授予資格

您的位置:法律教育網 > 法律英語 > 經典案例 > 正文

法律英語實用案例兩則

2017-02-10 11:39  來源:法律教育網   糾錯

Armory v. Delamirie

(1722) 1 Strange 5O5; 93 E.R. 664 (Court of King’s Bench)

The plaintiff being a chimney sweeper’s boy found a jewel and carried it to the defendant’s shop (who was a goldsmith) to know what it was, and delivered it into the hands of the apprentice, who under pretence of weighing it, took out the stones, and calling to the master to let him know it came to three halfpence, the master offered the boy the money, who refused to take it, and insisted to have the thing again; whereupon the apprentice delivered him back the socket without the stones. And now in trover against the master these points were ruled:

1. That the finder of a jewel, though he does not by such finding acquire an absolute property or ownership, yet he has such a property as will enable him to keep it against all but the rightful owner, and subsequently may maintain trover.

2. That the action well lay against the master, who gives a credit to his apprentice, and is answerable for his neglect.

3. As to the value of the jewel several of the trade were examined to prove what a jewel of the finest water that would fit the socket would be worth; and the Chief Justice directed the jury, that unless the defendant did produce the jewel, and shew it not to be of the finest water, they should presume the strongest case against him, and make the value of the best jewels the measure of their damages: which they accordingly did.

Carpenter v. Double R. Cattle Co.

701 P.2d 222 (Idaho 1985)

Dissenting Justice Bistline found a nuisance:

We have before us homeowners complaining of a nearby feedlot—not a small operation, but one which holds 9,000 cattle. The homeowners claim that the odor, manure, dust, insect infestation and increased concentration of birds constituted a nuisance. If the odoriferous quagmire created by 9,000 head of cattle is not a nuisance, it is difficult to imagine what is. While it may be desirable to have a serious nuisance continue because the utility of the operation causing the nuisance is great, those directly impacted by the serious nuisance deserve some compensation for the invasion they suffer as a result of the continuation. This is exactly what the more progressive provision of §826 (b) of the Restatement (Second) of Torts address. What §826(b) adds is a method of compensating those who must suffer the invasion without putting out of business the source or cause of the invasion. The fairness of it is overwhelming.

The majority disagreed and held that defendant’s cattle feedlot did not constitute a nuisance. The majority rejected subsection(b), Section 826, of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which permits a finding of nuisance even though the gravity of harm is outweighed by the utility of the conduct if the harm is “serious” and the payment of damages is “feasible” without forcing the business to discontinue.

責任編輯:ang

特別推薦

地圖
法律教育網官方微信

法律教育網微信公眾號向您推薦考試資訊、輔導資料、考試教材、歷年真題、法律常識、法律法規等資訊,只有你想不到,沒有我們做不到!詳情>>

1、凡本網注明“來源:法律教育網”的所有作品,版權均屬法律教育網所有,未經本網授權不得轉載、鏈接、轉貼或以其他方式使用;已經本網授權的,應在授權范圍內使用,且必須注明“來源:法律教育網”。違反上述聲明者,本網將追究其法律責任。

2、本網部分資料為網上搜集轉載,均盡力標明作者和出處。對于本網刊載作品涉及版權等問題的,請作者與本網站聯系,本網站核實確認后會盡快予以處理。

本網轉載之作品,并不意味著認同該作品的觀點或真實性。如其他媒體、網站或個人轉載使用,請與著作權人聯系,并自負法律責任。

3、本網站歡迎積極投稿

澳洲幸运10是哪里开奖 江西时时彩开奖 3d299期计划毒王 网页游戏靠什么赚钱吗 广西快乐十分 昌平附近哪里卖菜赚钱 河北十一选五最新开奖 北京十一选五开奖遗漏 腾讯棋牌下载安装 有哪些比较赚钱的阅读软件 排列3 pc蛋蛋孔明预测 卖奶油手机了赚钱吗 下载蓝洞棋牌斗地主 黑龙江11选5前三直 3d里分解组怎么赚钱 购买福建11选5