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.
In 1808 an action of reduction-improbation was brought by James Thomson against Helen Thomson, to set aside a disposition of heritage in her favour, on the ground of forgery.
After the usual procedure, Helen Thomson appeared, and abided by the deed; and a condescendence and answers were lodged, drawn by counsel, and a proof allowed. James Thomson finished his proof-in-chief in May 1811; and Helen Thomson examined two witnesses, but did not conclude her proof.
On the 21st May, counsel on both sides being present, the Lord Ordinary of new granted letters of incident diligence, at the instance of both parties, for proving.
On the 18th June 1812, the Lord Ordinary pronounced this interlocutor:— ‘ Act . Moncreiff.— Alt . Forsyth. The Lord Ordinary appoints parties' procurators to be ready to debate upon the import of the proof adduced by the pursuer (James Thomson,) and circumduces the term against the defender, (Helen Thomson) for not reporting her proof.’
And on 25th June 1812, the order for debate was renewed,—‘ Act. Moncreiff— Alt. Baird.’
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.