▁Mon c rie ff ▁( c iting ▁John ▁Sal mond ) ▁for ▁the ▁narrow ness ▁of ▁the ▁approach ▁and ▁because ▁there ▁was ▁no ▁decision ▁that ▁incorpor ated ▁it ▁into ▁Sc ots ▁law . ▁Finally , ▁M ull en , ▁despite ▁its ▁fact ual ▁similarity , ▁was ▁disc ount ed ▁by ▁a ▁" very ▁close ▁reading ▁of ▁the ▁preced ent ▁opinions ". ▁ ▁Court ▁of ▁Session , ▁Inner ▁House ▁Stevens on ▁appe aled ▁the ▁case ▁to ▁the ▁Inner ▁House , ▁where ▁it ▁was ▁heard ▁by ▁the ▁same ▁four ▁jud ges ▁who ▁had ▁found ▁against ▁M ull en : ▁Lord ▁Al ness ▁( the ▁Lord ▁Justice - C ler k ), ▁Lord ▁Or mid ale , ▁Lord ▁Hunter ▁and ▁Lord ▁Anderson . ▁In ▁their ▁judgment , ▁given ▁on ▁ 1 3 ▁November ▁ 1 9 3 0 , ▁they ▁all ▁referred ▁back ▁to ▁and ▁supported ▁their ▁statements ▁in ▁M ull en , ▁Lord ▁Al ness ▁obser ving ▁that ▁" the ▁only ▁difference ▁— ▁and , ▁so ▁far ▁as ▁I ▁can ▁see , ▁it ▁is ▁not ▁a ▁material ▁difference ▁— ▁between ▁that ▁case ▁[ M ull en ] ▁and ▁this ▁case ▁[ Don og h ue ] ▁is ▁that ▁there ▁we ▁were ▁dealing ▁with ▁a ▁mouse ▁in ▁a ▁g inger - be er ▁bott le , ▁and ▁here ▁we ▁are ▁dealing ▁with ▁a ▁sn ail ▁in ▁a ▁g inger - be er ▁bott le ". ▁Thus , ▁Lord ▁Al ness , ▁Lord ▁Or mid ale ▁and ▁Lord ▁Anderson ▁all ▁allowed ▁the ▁appeal ▁while ▁Lord ▁Hunter ▁diss