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, before answer, appointed ‘the case formerly adjusted to be again laid before Mr Pemberton for his re-consideration, and in order that, if he adhere to his former opinion, he may also answer the first of the two additional queries, suggested in the minute for Mr Cuninghame, and the other additional query annexed to this interlocutor.’ His Lordship added the annexed note.
‘The Lord Ordinary thinks there is nothing in the objection, on Mr Cuninghame's part, that the opinion of one lawyer is not sufficient evidence of what is the law of England, especially where there has been a mutual reference to one, for the purpose of ascertaining the law; and as the additional queries are put only to elicit explanations as to what was truly meant by or implied in the former opinion, there would seem to be no propriety in applying to any other quarter.’
Lord Glenlee concurred. This does not preclude a new case being framed, stating the facts more fully, and asking the opinion of counsel upon it. But I do not approve of going to Mr Pemberton, and getting his opinion, and then putting him under judicial examination, as it were.
Lord Ordinary, Jeffrey. Act. Sol.-Gen. (Rutherfurd,) H. J. Robertson. Alt. Ivory, Anderson. Andrew Howden, W. S. and Gibson-Craigs, Wardlaw & Dalziel, W. S. Agents.
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.