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.
Grierson, Oldham, & Company, Limited v. Forbes Maxwell & Company Limited , June 27, 1895, 22 R. 812 , followed .
Opinion ( per Lord Kincairney (Ordinary) that, A having consented to the action brought by the company upon the contract, the fact of his consent might be taken into account in determining whether the contract had in fact been assigned by him to them, and that if the decision in this case had depended upon that question only, the plea of “No title to sue” could not have been sustained without inquiry.
The defender admitted that he refused to pay any of the sums sued for, and in addition to defences upon the merits pleaded “(1) No title to sue.”
Charles J. Dear shall purchase and erect at his own cost one decorticating machine for the purpose of treating ramie.
On this machine working to the satisfaction of the said Peter Dawson (or his manager Doctor Dennys) ( a ) Peter Dawson shall pay for the same at double the cost, such cost to include freight and a reasonable sum for erection as may be hereafter agreed Page: 452 ↓
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
BAILII · Verbatim mirror
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.