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 (22d June 1836) found, ‘that the pursuer is not entitled to call upon the defenders to produce the instrument of sasine, and refuses the motion for decreet of adjudication, in regard to that writ, hoc statu.’
Dean of Faculty , for reclaimer.—This is an improbation of a sasine on the ground of forgery; and an extract is not sufficient, when the principal is called for.
Lord Glenlee .—Unless you allege that it is a forged instrument, an extract is, according to the statute, sufficient. You cannot, without a special averment of forgery, hoc statu, and in initio litis, require a warrant for production of the sasine. If, in your condescendence, you aver specifically forgery as a ground of reduction, you may then get a warrant.
Dean of Faculty .—No case of reduction-improbation is tried in the Jury Court, in which it is considered necessary to allege more on the ground of forgery than what is set forth in this summons.
Lord Justice-Clerk .—All that relates to forgery in this summons is mere matter of style. You may get a warrant upon a specific averment of forgery being made in a condescendence. The words, hoc statu, in the interlocutor, will keep the matter open.
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.