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.
Primo, Whether the said canal, cut as aforesaid, is to the injury and damage of the pursuers, or of any, and which of them, as proprietors of salmon-fishings in the said river?
Secundo, Whether the said dam-dike, formed as aforesaid, is to the injury and damage of the pursuers, or of any, and which of them, as proprietors of salmon-fishings in the said river? or,
Tertio, Whether the whole, or any, and which of the pursuers, or their predecessors or authors, or their commissioners, trustees or agents, duly authorised, acquiesced in the formation or continuance of the said canal? And,
Quarto, Whether the whole, or any, and which of the pursuers, or their predecessors or authors, or their commissioners, trustees or agents, duly authorised, acquiesced in the erection or continuance of the said dam-dike?’
The Court further directed, that on the trial of the first and second of the above issues, the pursuers of the action (Lord Forbes and others) should stand as pursuers; and that on the trial of the third and fourth, Leys, Masson and Company should stand in that character.
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.