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 conjoined actions between M'Arthur and Mrs Graham, the Lord Ordinary having pronounced an interlocutor against which both parties reclaimed, the Court gave judgment substantially in favour of Mrs Graham, and found her entitled to the expences of opposing M'Arthur's petition.
For these expences, Mrs Graham's agent afterwards obtained decree in his own name.
M'Arthur, in the meantime, having presented a re-claiming petition, praying for an alteration of the judgment of the Court upon the points as to which he had been successful before the Lord Ordinary, the Court altered their interlocutor upon certain of these points in his favour, and remitted the remaining point to the Lord Ordinary for further discussion.
Under this remit, the Lord Ordinary, after much litigation, and a proof adduced, decided the point in M'Arthur's favour, and found him entitled to the expences attending its discussion.
The Court refused the note, without requiring an answer by the opposite counsel. No distinction favourable to the agent's plea, it was observed, could be drawn between the case of Hamilton and the present. An agent is not entitled to ask more than the party himself could demand—barring always extrinsic claims of compensation.
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.