view, I will resort to no less an eminent authority than Lord Mansfield himself, whose use of the word in the leading case of Crepps ... place to quote a whole passage from the judgment of Lord Mansfield in the case above referred to, in order to illustrate the exact manner
Lords in 1854, as reported in 4 House of Lords, 679. It was there held by the judgment given by Lord Truro, Lord Chancellor, that ... Revised Reports 94 House of Lords 815 at p. 380).
16. Further at p. 381 Lord Truro quoted Lord Mansfield as follows:
The difference between
extension of the rule is always permissible, as stated by Lord Mansfield "where there are different statutes in pari materia though made at different
Johnston v. Sutton (1786) 1 TR 493 at pp. 510, 544, Lord Mansfield made the following observation:
The essential ground of this action is that
with the citizens who availed of its services, were explained by Lord Mansfield in his classic judgment in Whitfield v. Lord Le Despencer
said to be the sworn enemy of caprice. Discretion, as Lord Mansfield stated it in classic terms in the case of John Wilkes
soon as the Contract Act was brought on the statute book. Lord Mansfield equated consideration with moral obligation, but his view was repudiated in Eastwood
Loxdale', (1758) 1 Burr 445 at p. 447 (Q) Lord Mansfield laid down the rule thus:
"Where there are different statutes
Krishna Murari Singh {At : 02:00 P.M.} vs State Of U.P.Through Its
Right v. Darby', (1786) 1 TR 159 (B), Lord Mansfield said:
"If there be a lease for a year, and by consent
