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 reported the point verbally to the Court, and, thereafter, ‘remitted to the Sheriff, with instructions to alter his interlocutor, and to allow the case to proceed, and to impose a fine of five shillings upon the pursuer for neglecting to put the name of his agent on the back of the copy of citation; found expenses due in this Court.’
The respondents reclaimed , both on the merits of the objection, and as to the finding with regard to expenses; and on the latter point maintained, that it was unjust and incompetent to subject them in the expenses of defending a judgment of an inferior court, which was in their favour; and in support of this plea, they referred to the observations made by the Lord Chancellor in the late case of Harford and Company.
The Court (Lord Craigie dissenting) adhered to the interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary.
For the Advocator, Dean of Fac. (Hope,) M.P. Brown. J. Moubray and A. Howden, W.S. Agents. Alt. More, Crawford. Alex, Hamilton, W.S. Agent. B. 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.