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 interlocutor was brought under review by petition from the defenders, and answers, followed by mutual cases, in which—
In England, the same rule appears to have been adopted by Sir William Grant (Master of the Rolls) in the case of Brodie v. Barrie ( Vesey and Reames , vol. II. p. 127.) And, in this country, the case of Martin v. Martin, Stone, and Foote, 4th March 1794, was decided on this principle, and affirmed on appeal 17th June 1795.
The case of Martin is very strong in favour of the defenders; and the interlocutor of Lord Braxfield, which was adhered to by the Court, and affirmed on appeal, finding that the heir ‘is not entitled to approbate and reprobate the said deed,’ shews that the point was there determined according to the rule of the law of Scotland.
Lord Glenlee concurred with the Lords Justice-Clerk and Pitmilly.— The Court , therefore, (Lord Alloway dissenting) adhered to the interlocutor submitted to review.
Lord Ordinary, Pitmilly. Act. Sol.-Gen. and Adam Anderson. Alt. Dean of Faculty and Skene. Cranstoun & Anderson, W. S. and George Veitch, W. S. Agents. M. Clerk.
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.