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.
‘If that be a plea in a depending suspension, surely the charger was not entitled to proceed with new diligence on the same bill till the suspension was taken out of the way; but, as the Lord Ordinary reads the Act of Sederunt of 1831, there is a material distinction between summonses and letters of suspension. The former, if not executed and called within year and day, fall in toto; but letters of suspension, though unexecuted, only fall asleep; and, consequently, no new diligence can be raised till the suspension, then previously in dependence, is discussed.’
M'Neill pleaded — That the former charge having been passed from, and the expenses of the suspension offered, was sufficient entirely to take away the effect of that charge.
Dean of Faculty .— M'Neill admits the law, but says it is not applicable, the charge having been departed from; but he does not admit, what the correspondence shows, that it was a departure from all diligence on the bill.
Lord Ordinary, Cuninghame. Act. D. M'Neill, G.G. Bell. Alt. Dean of Fac. (Hope,) A. M'Neill. Jardine, Stodart, and Fraser, W.S. Agents, and Mackintosh and Gemmell, S.S.C. Agents.
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.