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 facts of this case are clearly stated in the note added by the Lord Ordinary to his interlocutor of the 5th March 1836, in the action of reduction.
‘The Lord Ordinary having considered the record and productions, and heard parties, sustains the defences upon the merits, assoilzies the defenders, and decerns; finds the pursuer liable in expenses; appoints an account thereof to be given in; and when lodged, remits the same to the Auditor to tax and report.’
The pursuer had also brought a forthcoming before the Sheriff; and in an advocation, the Lord Ordinary, whilst he agreed in the judgment of the Sheriff sustaining the plea of the quinquennial prescription, at the same time allowed the pursuer to prove his claim by the oath of the respondents.
Lord Ordinary, Cockburn. Act. Dean of Fac. (Hope,) Thomson. Alt. Sol.-Gen. (Rutherfurd,) Whigham. J. Court, S. S. C. W. Spalding, S. S. C. Davidsons & Syme, W. S. and J. A. Campbell, W. S. Agents. S. 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.