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 Husband and Wife Subject_2 Separation and Aliment Subject_3 Sheriff. Facts: When a wife is living in family with her husband it is not competent for the Sheriff to award the wife an allowance of interim aliment on the ground of the husband's cruelty. If she has a case for separation and aliment, she must raise an action in the Court of Session.
A diet of proof was fixed on 28th January 1874, and evidence was led on 2d April, 30th May, 25th and 26th October; and on 6th December 1874 the Sheriff pronounced this interlocutor:—
“Recall the interlocutors of the Sheriff-Substitute and Sheriff complained of; find that when the action was raised in the Sheriff-court the pursuer and defender were living together in the defender's house; find that they continued so to live together during the dependence of the action down to the 17th of March 1874, when the pursuer left the defender's house, and has since lived separate from him; find that, in these circumstances, the action for aliment was and is incompetent; dismiss the said action, and decern.”
Counsel for the Pursuer and Respondent— Mr Balfour . Agents— J. & R. D. Ross , W.S.
Counsel for the Defendant and Appellant— Mr Rhind . Agent— Wm. Kelso Thwaites , S.S.C.
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.