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 sustained the defences, and assoilzied the defender, but found no expences due.
The pursuer reclaimed; and the original deed having been produced from the record-office, the judges, on examining it, were satisfied that there was no erasure except in the letter ‘v,’ which seemed to have been substituted for the letter ‘f;’ but, although that letter had been left out altogether, the letters that remained were quite sufficient to shew that no other word but that of ‘twelve’ could have been intended; and that, even without the letter ‘v,’ it would have been sufficiently intelligible. They, therefore, adhered to the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor.
The pursuer, in a minute, craved a remit to engravers, or some properly qualified persons, to ascertain the nature and extent of the erasures; but the Court did not consider this necessary in the circumstances of the case.
Lord Newton, Ordinary. Act. J. A. Murray, Maidment. J. J. Fraser, W. S. Agent. Alt. Cockburn, Ivory. Ritchie and Miller, Agents. H. 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.