“The suspender denied that he had employed the charger, or authorised the legal proceedings which were carried on in his name; and he also denied that Mr Ellis had been authorised to act as his agent,…”
You're reading the free summary of JAMES AIKMAN, Suspender, v DANIEL FISHER, Charger (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.
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.