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 had refused the bill, on the ground that the messenger's execution bore that a copy of the account had been left. But the Court altered, and passed the bill.
Lord Medwyn , though he differed from the other Judges in Wallace v. Hume, was of opinion that this bill ought to be passed, as this case was different from the other, in as much as it was no where averred in the answers that a copy of the account had actually been served on the defender. In Wallace's case, the copy of the account served was produced in process.
The Court passed the bill without caution, Lord Meadowbank observing, that the defender (suspender) had been improperly brought into Court, and therefore no caution ought to be found.
Lord Ordinary, Cockburn. For Suspender, A. M'Neill. For Respondent, Jo. Russell. C. F. Davidson, W.S. and C. Fisher, S.S.C. Agents. Bill-Chamber.
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.