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.
This was a process of advocation, in which, after the record was closed, it appeared to the Lord Ordinary that it would be proper to examine certain bank books, with reference to the bill transactions between the parties. A diligence and commission were accordingly granted for this purpose, with consent of parties, and were reported.
On the 26th February, the Lord Ordinary decided the cause on its merits against the advocator, who then reclaimed against both these interlocutors, and—
The Court , before answer on the merits, recalled the interlocutor of the 22d February, and ordered the writing to be produced.
Lord Ordinary, Medwyn. Act. Dean of Fac. (Moncreiff) Monteith. Alt. Jameson, R. Thomson. A. Hamilton, W. S. and John Mowbray, W. S. Agents. F. Clerk.
This question occurred [under the act of sederunt 12th November 1825; but the provision is re-enacted, with little variation, by act of sederunt 11th July 1828, sect. 55.
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.