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.
Subject_1 Entail Subject_2 Petition for Disentail Subject_3 Expenses Subject_4 Stat. 38 and 39 Vict. cap. 61 (Entail Amendment Act 1875), sec. 5. Facts: In a petition for disentail, where a number of questions had arisen between the petitioning heir in possession and the second and third heirs in regard to the value of their expectancies in the entailed estate, and a great amount of litigation ensued, in which the petitioner was substantially successful— Held that in the circumstances neither party were entitled to expenses.
The respondents reclaimed, but afterwards stated that they would not offer argument against it. The petitioner then asked for the expenses of the litigation so far as the respondents had been unsuccessful. The Court held that the questions being novel and difficult, the respondents were entitled to appear in the circumstances, and refused the motion, but the Second Division adhered.
Counsel for Petitioner— Balfour — Pearson . Agent— A. P. Purves , W.S.
Counsel for Respondent— Kinnear — Robertson . Agents— Webster , Will , & Ritchie , S.S.C.
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.
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.