Court of appeal/ president S. Haralabis: administration of the Chania Muslim foundations, represented by the Director Ali Kasimzade and the Lawyer Ioannou Stefanidou, against H. Mehmed Rokali, resident of Chania, rerpesented by the Lawyer Georgiou M Foumi

İsim	Court of appeal/ president S. Haralabis: administration of the Chania Muslim foundations, represented by the Director Ali Kasimzade and the Lawyer Ioannou Stefanidou, against H. Mehmed Rokali, resident of Chania, rerpesented by the Lawyer Georgiou M Foumi
Basım Tarihi:	1910-11-04
Tür	Kitap
Dil	Modern Yunanca
Dijital	Evet
Yazma	Hayır
Fiziksel Boyutlar	20-30 cm
Kütüphane:	SALT Araştırma Koleksiyonları
Demirbaş Numarası	ACCEVPR00557
Kayıt Numarası	59715
Lokasyon	SALT Research
Tarih	1910-11-04
Notlar	Administration supports that opponent had been appointed Mouteveli of Monoteli Vakoufia of Haji Yaghya Ser Fournia and according to the law 1897,disputed vakif properties became his private property therefore,he owes to the foundations 1/16 of their value. Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal rejected the case on the basis that administration failed to present proof that according to the bequeathing will,before 1897 the manager had to provide the foundations with a share of the Vakif's incomes

Kaynağa git SALT Araştırma Koleksiyonları SALT Research Collections

Aramaya Dön

SALT Araştırma Koleksiyonları

Kaynağa git

Court of appeal/ president S. Haralabis: administration of the Chania Muslim foundations, represented by the Director Ali Kasimzade and the Lawyer Ioannou Stefanidou, against H. Mehmed Rokali, resident of Chania, rerpesented by the Lawyer Georgiou M Foumi

Basım Tarihi 1910-11-04

Tür Kitap

Dil Modern Yunanca

Dijital Evet

Yazma Hayır

Fiziksel Boyutlar 20-30 cm

Kütüphane SALT Araştırma Koleksiyonları

Demirbaş Numarası ACCEVPR00557

Kayıt Numarası 59715

Lokasyon SALT Research

Tarih 1910-11-04

Notlar Administration supports that opponent had been appointed Mouteveli of Monoteli Vakoufia of Haji Yaghya Ser Fournia and according to the law 1897,disputed vakif properties became his private property therefore,he owes to the foundations 1/16 of their value. Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal rejected the case on the basis that administration failed to present proof that according to the bequeathing will,before 1897 the manager had to provide the foundations with a share of the Vakif's incomes