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 ‘refused the bill as incompetent;’ on the ground, as explained in a note, that, ‘as the order for the examination of the petitioner is an interlocutory sentence, the Lord Ordinary presumes it has been supposed to fall under the provision, sect. 40, of the Judicature act. But the examination of a party does not seem to be the proof in the view of the Legislature, for which that enactment was made.’
Lord Ordinary, Medwyn. For Advocator, Sol.-Gen. Hope and Whigham. Thomas Bruce, jun. W. S. Agent. Alt. Jeffrey. Ritchie and Miller, S. S. C. Agents. Sir R. Dundas, 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.