Civil

JAMES HAMILTON v The DUKE OF QUEENSBERRY'S EXECUTORS (Court of Session)

[1834] ScotCS 09_1833_SC_facdec_406Court of Session1834

“2. That the respondents are not precluded from pursuing separate measures is res judicata by the interlocutor in the adjudication at their instance, which repelled the defence of accession to the tru…”

Read the full brief — free

You're reading the free summary of JAMES HAMILTON v The DUKE OF QUEENSBERRY'S EXECUTORS (Court of Session). Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.

Create free account Already have one? Sign in

No card required. Free forever.

Read the full judgment elsewhere

Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.

More Civil cases

Seyi Omooba v Michael Garrett Associated Limited (T/A Global Artists) & Anor

[2026] EWCA Civ 253

Lloyd Parker v West Midlands Trains Limited

[2026] EWCA Civ 357

John Textor v Iconic Sports Eagle Investment LLC

[2026] EWCA Civ 355

Hampshire County Council v GC & Anor

[2026] EWCA Civ 20

Peakstone Commerce Limited v Aziz Abdul Hozan Rahman

[2026] EWCA Civ 347

Kamran Safi v Secretary of State for the Home Department

[2026] EWCA Civ 149

This case is reproduced verbatim from the public judgment published by The National Archives under the UK Government's Open Government Licence v3.0. If you appear in this case and believe it should not be published — for example because your conviction was quashed on appeal, you have statutory anonymity, or for other privacy reasons — request removal here.