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.
The Lord Ordinary pronounced this interlocutor: ‘11th May 1838.—The Lord Ordinary having advised this bill, with the answers and productions, and the suspender having intimated that he is willing to find caution, if found requisite by the Lord Ordinary, on caution passes the bill.’
Thom reclaimed , craving the Court ‘to recal the above interlocutor, and to remit to the Lord Ordinary to refuse the bill of suspension, and to find the charger entitled to expenses; or to do otherwise,’ &c.
On advising, an objection was stated to the interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary in point of form; because when a bill is presented without caution or consignation, it must be passed or refused, in terms of the Regulation of Court, 18th December 1834.—Sharpe v. Kincaid, 21st January 1838.
A. M'Neill pleaded —The interlocutor is erroneous in point of form. By a notice or recommendation from the Court, of date 18th December 1834, (See foot-note), when a bill of suspension is presented without caution, the Lord Ordinary on the Bills is directed either to pass it without caution, or refuse it de piano; but in this case, which is that of a bill presented without caution, the Lord Ordinary has passed it on caution being found.
G. Moir answered —That notice has never been acted on, and referred to Sharpe v. Kincaid, 21st January 1838.
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.