“Held (1) that the obligation imposed by the feu-contract of 1855 was personal to the superior, and was not communicated to the other feuars; (2) that the question whether the granting of the feu-cont…”
You're reading the free summary of Walker & Dick v. Park. 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.