We could talk about equity in financial and accounting terms, meaning the value of ownership interest such as in property, stock, mortgage, company shareholding, income, etc.
The words themselves simply mean a transaction. Under the inclusionary common law doctrine of Res Gestae, a fact or opinion which is so closely associated in time, place and circumstances with some act or event which is in issue that it can be said to form a part of the same transaction as the act or event in issue, is itself admissible in evidence.
The justification given for the reception of such evidence is the light that it sheds upon the act or event in issue: The importance of the doctrine, for present purposes, is its provision for the admissibility of statements relating to the performance, occurrence or existence of some act, event or state of affairs which is in issue.
Such statements may be received by way of exception to the hearsay rule. Res Gestae forms part of hearsay. The boyfriend allegedly cut her throat. In court the question arose as to whether this statement could be admitted in evidence. Lord Justice Cockburn was emphatic that it could not be admitted.
He said that it was not part of the transaction, that it was said after the transaction was all over. The transaction being the cutting of the throat The Judge held that it was not admissible as part of the Res Gestae since it was something stated by her after it was all over.
Premji Kurji  E. A 58 In this case the accused was charged with murder, the deceased had been killed with a dagger and there was evidence that the accused had been found standing over the deceased body with a dagger dripping with blood.
The question was whether this statement was admissible as forming part of the transaction. Is that part of the same transaction as the murder. Were the words uttered part of the same transaction. It was held that they were part of the same transaction because when two acts of an accused person are so interwoven as to form part of the same transaction, it is not proper to shut out evidence of one of the acts even though it may involve introducing evidence of the commission of another offence.
The transaction here is rape, which is already finished by the time she goes to call her daddy.
The court held that it was not part of the transaction. The transaction was already over. Different courts have different conception of what forms part of the transaction.
The court in this rape case adopted a conservative view of what formed the transaction. It was held to be part of the transaction. The boy gave un-sworn evidence in which he described the assault and identified the accused but made no reference to any previous identification.Unfortunately, the doctrine of ultra vires has often been used in connection with illegal and forbidden act.
This use should also be prevented. The Doctrine of Ultra Vires. The action/transaction may be reviewed in two the position under common law and under the companies Act According to Company Law.
In common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a legal case that establishes a principle or rule. This principle or rule is then used by the court or other judicial bodies use when deciding later cases with similar issues or facts. .
|Case Search||Related Introduction The doctrine of judicial precedent is based upon the principle of stare decisis, which means the standing by of previous decisions.|
The Relative Importance of Legislation, Custom, Doctrine, and Precedent in French Law Yvon Loussouarn* The law of every country reflects its civilization and often.
Relevance, in the common law of evidence, is the tendency of a given item of evidence to prove or disprove one of the legal elements of the case, History of legal doctrine. In The Supreme Court of Canada was concerned with exclusionary discretion within the judicial system.
Jun 24, · The following is a list of legal concepts and principles, most of which apply under common law jurisdictions.
absolute liability adequate and independent state ground. Doctrine of ultra vires has been developed to protect the investors and creditors of the company.
This doctrine prevents a company to employ the money of the investors for a purpose other than those stated in the objects clause of its memorandum.