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.
Whether, independently of such understanding and agreement between the parties, the works executed, and the sums expended by the pursuers for the purpose of extinguishing or confining the said fire, were executed and expended to the benefit and advantage of the defender; and whether the defender is indebted and resting owing to the pursuers in the sum of L. 14,279, or any part thereof, with interest thereon, in remuneration or payment for the works so executed, and sums so expended? Or,
Whether the said fire was caused by the fault or negligence of the pursuers, or of persons in their employment, or for whom they were responsible?’
The Lord Ordinary (1st November 1839) found, ‘that there are no points of law or relevancy in this case which it would be expedient to determine before sending the whole cause to a jury.’
His Lordship also found, that the issues reported by the clerks were ‘not calculated to try all the matters of fact in dispute between the parties,’ and suggested another set of issues as better calculated for that purpose; but before finally settling them, his Lordship made avisandum therewith and with the whole cause to the Court, adding the following note:
Lord Meadowbank , (to Dean of Faculty.)—Would you state the questions of law you wish us to decide previously to trial?
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.