If you found BAILII useful today, could you please make a contribution?
Your donation will help us maintain and extend our databases of legal information. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month donates, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
Page: 12↓
et e contra.
In a reduction of an agreement on the
Page: 13↓
grounds of fraudulent impetration and essential error, new trial refused.
This case involved a question as to the validity of a deed of agreement, dated in September 1857, entered into betwixt two brothers, both of whom are now dead—Mr William Gunning Campbell of Fairfield, and Mr George Gunning Campbell. The two brothers were children of the proprietor of the estate of Sorn in Ayrshire. This estate descended to William, and he acquired besides it a property called Fairfield. George was a medical man in India, where he acquired an immense fortune. The two brothers died—the one in 1857, and the other in 1858. In early life they had an inveterate quarrel, and they had been estranged for about forty years; but upon George's return from India, William invited him to Fairfield, and George some time thereafter executed a deed by which he bound himself to advance £20,000 for the purpose of purchasing additional land adjoining Fairfield, which was to be settled on the same heirs as Fairfield was, that so the possessions of the family might be increased. This was the deed challenged. George maintained before his death that he had been cheated into signing it, and after his death his trustees sought to reduce it. It was challenged on the grounds (1) of fraudulent impetration by William Gunning Campbell, and (2) of essential error induced by him.
These issues were tried before Lord Jerviswoode and a jury on the 3d, 4th, and 5th November 1864, when a verdict was returned for William G. Campbell's executors upholding the agreement.
The pursuers on the issues moved for a rule on the defenders, with a view to a new trial. The rule was granted and a hearing took place thereon.
To-day the Court intimated that although there was room for a good deal of argument on both sides of the case, they had come to the conclusion that there was not sufficient ground to disturb the verdict of the jury. The rule was therefore discharged with expenses.
Counsel for Pursuers— Mr Clark, Mr Gifford, and Mr John Hunter. Agents— Messrs A. & A. Campbell, W. S.
Counsel for Defenders — The Solicitor-General and Mr Fraser. Agents— Messrs Webster & Sprott, S.S.C.