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.
Fleming having again written to his employer two days before the sale, stating that the individual alluded to was from home, but that he had employed another person to examine and value the property, and requesting to know whether it was still his wish that the above sum should be offered—the latter, on the 27th January, wrote as follows:—‘I have your's of yesterday, and would be sorry to lose the property for a trifle; if you think it worth L.1400, I will give it, if necessary.’
Hunter came to Glasgow on the day of the sale, and was present at it along with Fleming, who then purchased the subject at the price of L.928.
II. Even, on the supposition that the liability in question did originally attach to the defenders, they must now be held to be entirely liberated by the pursuers' acquiescence in, and homologation of the transaction for so many years, without any complaint, or the most distant intimation that they held the defenders liable in damages, or required that they should free them from the purchase, until, by a change of times and circumstances, it turned out a disadvantageous bargain.
The Lord Ordinary remitted the cause simpliciter to the sheriff, and found the pursuers liable in expenses. His Lordship, at the same time, issued the following note:—
The pursuers reclaimed; and referred to the case of Lillie, v. Macdonald, 13th Dec. 1816, as furnishing an answer to the objection of acquiescence or delay in intimating the claim.
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.