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.
Authorities— Duncan's Factor v. Duncan , June 3, 1874, 1 R. 964 ; Beveridge on Process, i. 383; clyne v. Reid , July 5, 1828, 6 S. 1085 ; Dinsdale v. Ware , December 17, 1829, 8 S. 262 ; Johnstone v. Elder , January 17, 1832, 10 S. 195 ; Morgan v. Morris , March 11, 1856, 18 D. 797 ; Shand's Practice, 600.
The respondents objected— Gallie v. Wylie , January 25, 1845, 7 D. 301 ; Jaffe'6 v. Carruthers , March 3,1860, 22 D. 936 ; Geikie v. Morris (Lord Chancellor in 3 Macq. 353 ).
I think the course we should take is to recal in hoc statu the interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary, and remit to his Lordship to receive these claims, but on condition of the claimants paying all expenses incurred by the respondents, which shall not be available for the subsequent stages of the case. That was the condition considered reasonable in the case of Jaffe' v. Carruthers , and I think we should follow the rule laid down in that Page: 724 ↓
Counsel for Reclaimers and Claimants Matthew Henry and Others— M'Kechnie . Agents — Ronald & Ritchie , S. S. C.
Counsel for Reclaimers and Claimants Robert Anderson and Others— Jameson . Agents — Ronald & Ritchie , 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.