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.
Macintosh raised letters of general charge against her, as heir of line of her father, dated the 16th, and executed on the 26th November 1827.
He also raised similar letters against her, as representing her grandfather, dated the 29th November, and executed on the 3d December 1827.
On the respective dates of the latter charge and execution, a summons of constitution, proceeding upon both charges, was raised and executed by Macintosh against Miss Macqueen, citing her to appear on the 4th January 1828. The date of the execution of the summons was thus several days within the annus deliberandi , and the day of compearance after that period, but before the elapse of the induciæ of the second charge.
The chief defence was, that the defender neither represents, nor was lawfully charged to enter heir to her father and grandfather when this summons was raised and executed, in respect, first , that the charge did not precede the summons, in so far as she is called as representing her grandfather; and, secondly , that both the charges and the summons were executed within the annus deliberandi .
Note .—‘The parties have pleaded the first preliminary defence so anxiously, that the Lord Ordinary will state, but as briefly as possible, the grounds of his judgment.
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.