Wall. The wall section shall be constructed of 4" solid concrete, cast in one piece to minimize joints, with an exposed aggregate exterior finish and capable of withstanding gun fire from a 30.06 at 50 feet. The wall insulation and finish shall be foamboard insulation with 1/2" vinyl coated board. All joints will be covered by plastic joint or corner trim. All floor/wall intersections will be finished with 4" vinyl baseboard. There will be no exposed wall-to-floor joint.
Wall. Exterior walls to be unpainted exposed masonry and the interior of the exterior walls to be glass, metal studs, insulation and 5/8” drywall above the glass area only.
Wall. No tiles behind/below kitchen cabinets, Wall surface above the false ceiling may be left in its original bare condition.
Wall. The internal wall of the flat is putty finish and the external wall finishing with weather coat paint & graceful elevation.
Wall. 3.Roofing covering:
Wall. Wall of the said proposed G+4 storied new Building shall be 8 inches thick brick walls on the external face and 3 inches thick brick partition internal walls and the said walls will be finished by putty of good quality.
Wall. Wall Signs placed against the exterior walls of buildings may not extend more than twelve (12) inches outside of a building's wall surface and shall fit within a rectangular perimeter no greater than thirty-two (32) square feet in size. The wall Signs should be composed of individual letters or symbols mounted directly on background material acceptable to the Village. The letters/symbols may be internally illuminated but the background, if any, must be an opaque material. External point source lighting may be used on non-illuminated Signage.
Wall. 202, the court say: “When there is no disclaimer the statute has no application to an express trust, such as we have found to exist in this case.” Here the court found a trust to have existed which is strikingly similar in its main feature to the trust set up in this case. If the averments of the bill as to the original existence of a trust are sustained by competent and sufficient proof, the applicability of the limitation will then depend upon whether, and at what time, there was a disclaimer of the trust by the trustee or his representatives, or whether and when the interests of the parties became adverse. The respondents have not offered any evidence; and there is nothing in the record to show that Xxxx X. Xxxxxx, at any time during his 289 life, denied the trust, or that his assignees and personal representative assumed an attitude adverse to it until 1879, within a year before the institution of this suit. It is true that Xxxx X. Xxxxxx held the legal title and made sales and conveyances of parts of the trust property, and received the purchase money therefor. This was not, however, inconsistent with the trust, but was in entire harmony with, and in pursuance of, its alleged object and terms. More than this, it is in proof that X. X. Xxxxxx and X. X. Xxxxxx occupied parts of the trust property for some years during the life of Xxxx X. Xxxxxx without paying any rent to him, or any claim for it on his part. Under these circumstances, it is clear that an adverse relation touching the alleged trust did not exist for two years between X. X. Xxxxxx and Xxxx X. Xxxxxx or his representatives; and hence that the statutory limitation is ineffectually invoked. The testimony of X. X. Xxxxxx has been taken and offered, and it is indispensible to the complainants. His competency as a witness is objected to by the respondents. Although he is not a party to this suit, yet we think he has such an interest in its result as would disqualify him, unless he is rendered competent by section 858 of the Revised Statutes. That section, in the most comprehensive terms, removes all disqualifications to testify by a party to an action, or by one interested in the issue tried; but it provides “that in actions by or against executors, administrators, or guardians, in which judgment may be rendered for or against them, neither party shall be allowed to testify against the other, as to any transaction with or statement by the testator, intestate, or xxxx, unless called to testify t...
Wall. Remove all existing applied wall finishes, wallpaper, artex, tiles etc. Cut out defective wall plaster, plasterboard, or lath and plaster and repair in lightweight plaster and skim or plasterboard and skim over 1M² (per property) 14 WALL:RENEW APPLY SKIM COAT XXXXXXX XX £13.56 £12.93 £0.63 Wall: Remove all existing applied wall finishes, wallpaper, artex, tiles etc. Prepare defective plaster skim and apply new skim coat of plaster including applying two coats of bonding agent. 15 WALL TILES:HACK OFF AND MAKE GOOD SM £32.26 £31.57 £0.69 Wall Tiles: Hack off glazed wall tiling, make good wall with lightweight plaster and skim/ or skim as necessary. 16 WALL TILES:FIX NEW GLAZED TILES SM £74.86 £56.95 £17.91 Wall Tiles: Remove existing wall tiles and prepare wall by making good as necessary to receive new tiles, supply and fix new ne 152x152x6mm glazed ceramic wall tiles to splash back and cills, including fixing with adhesive, grouting, and any necessary cutting, and clear away debris to approved tip 17 FLOOR TILES:RENEW VINYL FLOORTILES SM £49.94 £36.40 £13.54 Floor Tiles: Take up vinyl floor tiles, including bedding material, provide and lay 2.5mm thick or similar floor tiles 225mm x 225mm, any colour laid level or to fall with approved fixative including cutting and fitting around fitments etc, and fair joint and flush edge to existing finishing including levelling screed GLAZING
Wall. 1, it is held that the matter of waiver is to be determined upon all the circumstances of the Case; and, if nothing appears to show it affirmatively, the lien may be recognized and enforced. I find nothing in these negotiations to Support the conclusion that defendants intended to abandon the property as security for the purchase money. As a further de- fense, respondent contends that the lien was waived by that clause of the agreement of August 18, 1887, by which the title to the mine was to be registered “free from all charges and incumbrances;” complainants thereby agreeing to give the company a clear title. This is undoubtedly a correct construction as to antecedent transactions, but it is not to be tak- en to refer to the negotiation then pending. An agreement to convey without incumbrance means only that the title shall be clear at the date of the agreement. Whatever is incorpo- rated into the agreement, or grows out of it, is not affected by such an obligation. It has never been understood that a vendor's lien is waived by covenants of warranty inserted in the deed of conveyance; and so in this article complainants must be understood as saying that the title which would be given to the company by their deed was free from incumbrance. If the contract had provided for security by mortgage or trustdeed, it would be absurd to say that by the clause under consideration such security would be waived; and this clause has no relation whatever to the vendor's lien. Further on in the same instrument provision is made for the payment of £55,000 of the purchase money, and so the article itself gives notice of the fact that a large part of the purchase money was still due. Upon the face of the instrument, it cannot be assumed that the premises were free and clear from incumbrance in respect to the purchase money. Re- ferring to the same clause, respondent maintains that complainants are estopped of their lien from having participated in the sale of shares of stock of the company. It is urged that having agreed to invest the company with a clear title to the mine, and having sold shares of the company's stock upon that representation, they shall not be permitted to take the company's property, and thus destroy the value of the shares so sold. As already stated, the stock was sold by Xxxxxxxx or by the Company; but, if the stock had been sold by complainants, there was in fact no representation as to the vendor's lien. As already explained, the agreement to convey...
