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.
Subject_1 Process Subject_2 Reclaiming Note Subject_3 Court of Session Act, 1861 (31 and 32 Vict. cap. 100). Facts: Question—whether an interlocutor, which has become “final,” under § 28 of the Court of Session Act, may be reviewed by reclaiming note against a subsequent interlocutor, under § 52.
Against this latter interlocutor refusing the motion, leave was given to reclaim on July 30, 1872.
For the reclaimer it was argued—The Act 31 and 32 Vict. cap. 100, sec. 52, runs as follows:—“Every reclaiming note, whether presented before or after the whole cause has been decided in the Outer House, shall have the effect of submitting to the Page: 275 ↓
This enables the reclaimer to bring under review the interlocutor of July 8,1868, as well as the subsequent one.
Authorities quoted— Bannatyne's Trs. 7 Macph. 813 ; Scheniman , June 25, 1828, 10 S. 1019 ; Forbes , 10 S. 374 ; Matthew , 6 D. 718 .
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.