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 general rule is, that where a church has never been regularly divided, any heritor may require this to be done. Special rights of property, as in the case of North Leith, may be established, and when made out, must be regarded in the division. But the advocator pretends no such special rights, and alleges nothing but an avowed usurpation by tolerance, and it is very clear that if his plea were sustained, it would overset and prevent the division altogether.’
Marshall .—Having had possession for more than forty years, we are entitled to plead immemorial possession.
In answer to a question by Lord Medwyn , the reclaimer stated, that the tenants of the reclaimer's estate had been in use to sit in a particular portion of the church.
The Lords then ‘Adhere to the interlocutor complained of; refuse the desire of the note; but reserving to the advocator his claim for any expense he may have incurred in fitting up the seat in the church from which he is removed; of new finds expenses due,’ &c.
Lord Ordinary, Moncreiff. Act. Marshall. Alt. Sol.-Gen. (Rutherford) and Whigham. Thomson, Elder, & Burn, W. S. and Davidson and Syme, W. S. Agents. T. 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.