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.
Mr Railton, the gentleman employed on my behalf, has my full authority in the business. I am,’ &c.
This objection was frivolous. Railton had the bill, and that was a good mandate in the circumstances; and Mr Pullman had authorised M'Neill to place it in the hands of a person, to do immediate diligence thereon.
Lord President .—I am of the same opinion. Muir could have had no good motive in writing the letter to Pullman himself, when his mandatary, M'Neill, and his agent, Railton, were on the spot. He should have applied to M'Neill, and should have left it to him to correspond with his employer Pullman. I concur entirely with Lord Gillies; and my opinion has been made up on the passages which have been referred to by him.
The Court , accordingly, unanimously pronounced a judgment, advocating the cause, recalling the interdict, dismissing the original petition, and decerning; finding Railton and Pullman entitled to their respective expenses.
Lord Ordinary, Fullerton. Act. Dean of Fac. (Hope,) Patterson. Alt. M'Neill, Penney. John Cullen, W. S. and Henry Tod, W. S. 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.