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 Lord Ordinary reported the question on the bill and answers, and added the following note.
‘ Note. —The Lord Ordinary reports this case because this course appears to be the best for the interests involved, according to the opinion which he has formed of the case.
His opinion is, that the fourth reason of suspension ‘(the one above recited)’ is well founded.
He thinks that it may be safely held, 1 st , That the matter of the erection of a new church was legitimately in the hands of the presbytery; and, 2 dly , That, though the complainer had originally entertained different views in regard to the most eligible site of the new church, and had afterwards objected to the plan proposed, as ill suited to the old site, he had at last waived, and does now waive, all objection to that plan. This has been stated to the Lord Ordinary.
It is strongly pleaded that the complainer had consented to this proceeding. This would supersede any general question. But, after a careful examination of the whole minutes, the Lord Ordinary is satisfied that there is no foundation for it.’ (His Lordship here gives his reasons for holding that Mr Porterfield was not barred from raising the question.)
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.