Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
(Before Viscount Finlay , Viscount Cave , and Lords Dunedin , Shaw , and Wrenbury .)
On May 3rd 1918 Robert Hindle, pursuer , brought an action against John Cotton Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Acts 1862–1900, and against C. R. W. Cotton, James Aikman Smith, and others, defenders , in which he sought to have reduced “(1) a pretended resolution of the board of directors” of the company, “dated 21st March 1918, resolving that the pursuer should cease to be a member of the company, and (2) a pretended appropriation of the pursuer's shares in the company, dated on or about 17th April 1918.”
The defenders pleaded—“(1) The averments of the pursuer so far as material being irrelevant and insufficient to support the conclusions of the summons, the action should be dismissed.”
On 10th July 1918 the Lord Ordinary ( Ormidale ) repelled heads ( a ) and ( b ) of pursuer's first plea and the defenders' first plea, and quoad ultra allowed parties a proof.
Opinion .—“The first plea-in-law for the pursuer, sub-head ( a ), raises the question whether article 36 is contrary to public policy and illegal. That appeared to me a question of some difficulty, and if the plea had been insisted in I should have taken time to consider my judgment. But as Mr Constable Page: 627 ↓
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
[2026] UKET 8001744_2025
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.