“The defender denied that the teinds were exhausted by the augmentation of 1812, and called upon the pursuer to have the stipend properly localled, that the true amount of augmented stipend of which s…”
You're reading the free summary of Murray v. Countess of Rothes. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.