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.
Answered —The overseer of the pursuer was bound to have been present, but failed to attend. Notes of the oversman's opinion were furnished to the pursuer's law-agent; but neither the pursuer nor his agent stated any objections to that opinion, nor demanded any other inspection of the ground, although the decree-arbitral was not executed till two months after Mr Paterson was certiorated of the oversman's opinion; Spearman v. Pitloh, 28th Feb. 1828.
Farther, the interdict had lapsed before the proceedings of the oversman took place. Besides, the devolution being valid, the oversman could not, and ought not to have been interdicted from proceeding; Abbot v. Skelton, 12th May 1824; Fraser v. Gordon, 5th July 1834.
The pursuer renounced farther proof; but before the Lord Ordinary could decide the cause, he was succeeded by Lord Jeffrey, in the Reduction Roll, and therefore ordered cases, intimating, in a note, his ‘decided impression, that sufficient grounds have been established for reducing the decree-arbitral.’ Lord Cockburn, who succeeded Lord Jeffrey, made avisandum to the Court with the cases.
Lords Ordinary, Moncreiff and Cockburn. Act. J.A. Murray and Jo. Tait. Tait & Young, W. S. Agents. Alt. Dean of Fac. (Hope,) and Marshall. James Stuart, S.S.C. Agent. F. 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.