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.
Note .—The Lord Ordinary has felt this case to be one of some nicety and difficulty, and he is not surprised that the defenders should have hesitated to comply with the pursuer's demands without judicial authority. He cannot doubt that they have acted throughout in good faith.
The disputed question is, whether the pursuer was, under the disposition and settlement of her late master Mr M'William, entitled to the annuity of £30 left to her by him, a morte testatoris , that is to say, from the 14th of November 1870, or whether it was to commence only nearly half a—year thereafter.
It appears that in the present case the defenders have secured for the pursuer a Government life annuity, commencing as from the 5th of April 1871, which it was stated by her counsel at the debate she was willing to accept, provided she also got payment of an equivalent in money, being £11, 13s. 5d. for the prior period; and for this sum, besides delivery of the document constituting Page: 524 ↓
Counsel for Pursuers— Reid and Burnet . Agents— J. & J. Milligan , W.S.
Counsel for Defenders—Solicitor-General ( Clark ) and Asher . Agent— R. M'William , S.S.C.
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.