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.
The Earl of Crawford, pursuer , raised an action against the Rev. Henry Paton, defender , concluding for (1) delivery of “all notes of excerpts from the volumes of Acts and Decreets of the Court of Session and the Register of Deeds of entries relating to Page: 871 ↓
The pursuer pleaded — “(1) The pursuer is entitled to delivery of the said notes in respect of (1st) they were made on his instructions and for his benefit in pursuance of the employment of the defender condescended on, et separatim . (2nd) that they are necessary to the pursuer for the purposes of comparison with the said transcripts. (2) In respect of the defender retaining the said notes and using them as alleged to assist himself and others in making searches for persons other than the pursuer, an interdict should be granted as craved.”
The defender pleaded, inter alia —“(1) No title to sue. (4) The pursuer's averments, so far as material, being unfounded in fact, the defender is entitled to absolvitor, with expenses.”
The facts are given in the opinion of the Lord Ordinary ( Skerrington ), who, after a proof on 26th May 1910, repelled the first plea-in-law for the defender and the pleas-in-law for the pursuer, and assoilzied the defender.
The defender has a preliminary plea on record of “no title to sue.” If my views on the merits of the case are well founded, there is no occasion to consider it. But I think the Lord Ordinary rightly repelled the plea, for the reasons he has assigned.
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.