Xxxxxxxxxx v. Monarch Airlines Ltd, (1980) UKHL 6, at 88. 79 See, section 1.3.1.2(2)(ii). 80 See, Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx, Treaty Interpretation 197 (2nd edition, The Oxford International Law Library, 2017). The context for the purpose of the interpretation of a treaty shall comprise, in addition to the text, including its preamble and annexes:
Xxxxxxxxxx v. Avalon Health Care, Inc., et al. Case No. RG190137159 8 (Alameda Superior Court – 04-04-19) 10 1.1.7. Xxxxxxx v. Pacifica Senior Living Management LLC, et al. Case No. 37-2020-
Xxxxxxxxxx v. First Nat’l Bank of Elk River, 000 X.X.0x 81 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985). 97 Xxxx v. Midwest Recovery Bureau Co., 000 X.X.0x 232 (Minn. 1980); Xxxxxxxx x. Xxxx Trucks, Inc., 000 X.X.0x 220 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988). suit that does not involve a full trial.98 Two steps are involved. First, in a replevin action, the creditor gets the court to agree that the creditor probably has the right to the collat- eral. Second, in a claim and delivery action, the court gives the creditor permission to take the property.99
Xxxxxxxxxx v. The Session of the West End Presbyterian Church (Remedial Case 215-5, 2003). The Book of Order provides in G-8.0201 (now G-4.0203) that: All property held by or for a congregation, a presbytery, a synod, the General Assembly, or the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), whether legal title is lodged in a corporation, a trustee or trustees, or an unincorporated association, and whether the property is used in programs of a congregation or of a higher council or retained for the production of income, is held in trust nevertheless for the use and benefit of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Under the Trust Clause, a presbytery's discretionary authority to determine property rights, while broad, must be guided by the presbytery acting as a fiduciary for the benefit of the PC(U.S.A.), the beneficiary of the Trust Clause. A congregation’s financial and all other assets are also understood to be covered by the Trust Clause. Chesterbrook Taiwanese PC v. National Capital Presbytery, Remedial Case 217-12, 2006.
Xxxxxxxxxx v. Xxxxxx, A.; Xxxxxx, S.;
Xxxxxxxxxx v
