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.
In this case the pursuer moved the Lord Ordinary for a diligence to recover certain writings mentioned in a specification, to enable him (as he alleged) to revise his condescendence. The Lord Ordinary refused the motion hoc statu . The pursuer reclaimed . At advising,
The other Judges having concurred, the Court recalled, and granted the diligence as craved, reserving all questions of expenses.
Lord Ordinary, Cockburn. Act. D. M'Neill. Menzies & M'Conochie, W. S. Agents. Alt. Sol.-Gen, (Maitland,) Monro. Thomson Paul, W. S. Agent. N. Clerk.
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.