 | Lewis Naphtali Dembitz - 1895 - 890 str.
...between courts is Peacock v. Bell, 1 Sannd. 74. It says: "Nothing shall be intended (L e. presumed) to be out of the jurisdiction of a superior court, but that which specially appears to be so, and nothing shall be intended to be within the jurisdiction of an inferior... | |
 | Sir William Oldnall Russell, Horace Smith, Alfred Percival Perceval Keep - 1896 - 916 str.
...process of superior Courts acting by the authority of the common law. 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 nothing shall be intended to be within the jurisdiction of an inferior... | |
 | Burr W. Jones - 1896 - 718 str.
...doctrine was long since declared in a leading case as follows: " The rule for jurisdiction is this, that nothing shall be intended to be out of the jurisdiction of a superior court but that which specially appears to be so."1 This rule has been fuily upheld by the decisions in this country and... | |
 | Colorado - 1896 - 874 str.
...appearance is alwnys a jurlsdictioual question. Gargan v. School District. 4 Colo. 53. 58 (1878). 42. Nothing shall be intended to be out of the jurisdiction of a superior court but that which especially appears to be so. and nothing shall be intended to be within the jurisdiction of an inferior... | |
 | Iowa. Supreme Court - 1896 - 678 str.
...court in this state of original jurisdiction. Const., art. 5, sees. 1, 6 ; Code of 1851, sec. 1676. 2. Nothing shall be intended to be out of the jurisdiction of a superior court, save what especially appears so. Cooper v. Sunderland, 3 Iowa, 125 ; 1 Smith's LC (5th ed.), 816, 822,... | |
 | Sir William Reynell Anson - 1897 - 422 str.
...in construing warrants issued in virtue of these powers of the House, the rule was held to apply ' that nothing shall be intended to be out of the jurisdiction of a superior Court, but that which specially appears to be so.' The powers here referred to will 'require further discussion and illustration,... | |
 | Illinois. Appellate Court, Edwin Burritt Smith, Martin L. Newell - 1898 - 716 str.
...22 Ill. App. 527; Moore v. Williams, 132 Ill. 589; Duggan v. Smyser, 46 Ill. App. 39. " Nothing will be intended to be out of the jurisdiction of a Superior Court. Such courts will be presumed to be acting within their jurisdiction until the contrary is made to appear.... | |
 | 1898 - 1094 str.
...JURISDICTION — 1. Courts of General Jurisdiction — a. STATEMENT OF THE RULE. — The general rule is that nothing shall be intended to be out of the jurisdiction of courts of superior general jurisdiction but that which especially appears to be so ; * with such courts... | |
 | Albert William Chaster - 1899 - 332 str.
...warrant is bad, and no justification to the officer who executes it. " 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, ... nothing shall be intended to be within the jurisdiction of an inferior... | |
 | John Davison Lawson - 1899 - 820 str.
...according to the course of the common law (C), the jurisdiction is not presumed but must be shown.1 Nothing shall be intended to be out of the jurisdiction of a superior court, but that which specially appears to be so, and nothing will be presumed to be within- the jurisdiction of inferior... | |
| |
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 the jurisdiction of an inferior court... 
