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 1831, the pursuer, Robert Christie, brought an action before the Sheriff of Perthshire against the defenders, for payment of a bill at 12 months for L.52, 10s., dated 13 June 1817, drawn by the pursuer upon and accepted by the defenders, and also by John Murdoch, merchant in Stirling, now bankrupt, and by the deceased William Forman.
The defenders having pleaded prescription, a reference to the oath of the defenders was allowed; and the following depositions were accordingly emitted by them:
The Sheriff having repelled the above objections stated by the defenders, the following additional depositions were emitted by them.
William Murdoch. ‘Interrogated, Whether the deponent subscribed the said bill with the object of William Forman obtaining money thereon? depones and answers, That the deponent just put his name to it at the request of Forman or his brother, and he can say no more about it. And all this is truth,’ &c.
The Sheriff-depute having adhered to these interlocutors, the pursuer raised an advocation; and the Lord Ordinary pronounced the following interlocutor, accompanied with the subjoined note:
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.