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 action was met by certain preliminary defences. In particular, the defenders pleaded, 1. No process, Euphemia Christie not being a defender; 2. No title to pursue; 3. The action was incompetent, more than year and day having elapsed since the decreet of divorce was pronounced; Donald v. Thom, 16th May 1823; 4. Action barred by death of John Menzies, and second marriage of Euphemia Christie; 5. Proof of collusion excluded, an oath of calumny having been taken; Greenhill, 2. Sh. App . 435.
The Lord Ordinary ordered cases, and thereafter reported the cause to the Court.
The Lord Justice-Clerk referred to the Notes of Lord Reston, in Gardner's case, and said, that in deciding the case of Donald v. Thom, the Court held themselves imperatively bound to give effect to the instructions; and accordingly found, that the prescriptive limitation of year and day applied as a bar against the reduction of every species of divorce.
Lord Glenlee concurred, and farther stated, that it seemed absurd to call on the widow to produce the decree. The pursuers themselves should produce it if they could; but they, clearly, could not call on these defenders to produce it.
Lord Ordinary, Cockburn. Act. Keay, S. Keir jun. Alt. Dean of Fac. (Hope,) and G. Bell. Macintosh & Ducat, W. S. and Alex. Stevenson, W. S. Agents. F. 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.