BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, 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!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Scottish Court of Session Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Walter Grosat, Charger, v Henry Cunningham, &c. Suspenders. [1739] Mor 626 (24 January 1739)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1739/Mor0200626-009.html
Cite as: [1739] Mor 626

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


[1739] Mor 626      

Subject_1 ARBITRATION.
Subject_2 Power of Arbiters.

Walter Grosat, Charger,
v.
Henry Cunningham, &c Suspenders.

Date: 24 January 1739
Case No. No 9.

Arbiters cannot decern for a penalty, other or greater, than is contained in the submission. The penalty will be restricted quoad excessum.


Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy

These parties entered into a submission, wherein they bound themselves to obtemper the decreet, under the penalty of 20l. Sterling; and, by the decreet-arbitral following thereon, the suspenders were decerned to pay 200l. Sterling, by equal portions, at Lammas and Martinmas then next, with 201 Sterling of penalty for each term's failzie; and likewise it decerned for a penalty of 20l. Sterling, to be paid by the party failing to observe, to the party performing, or willing to perform.

It was objected, in a suspension of the decreet-arbitral, That the arbiters had acted ultra vires, in decerning for 20l. Sterling of penalty for each term's failzie.

Answered: Wherever a liquid sum is found due, or decerned for by arbiters, they can either make it payable by the decreet-arbitral at a certain term, or they can decern the party debtor to grant bond for it, payable at a certain term; and, in this last case, they would decern the bond to be extended in common form, that is, with interest from the date, or term of payment, and a fifth part of the principal, as penalty: And the case is the same where they decern a sum to be paid by their decreet-arbitral; the decreet-arbitral is, in that case, the bond, and the fifth part for penalty is, of course, a part of the bond. There is no absurdity at all in supposing two different penalties to be due, one by the bond, and one by the obligation to submit; and both are incurred in case of disobedience, the penalty in this submission by disobedience, and the other by failure of payment.

The Lords restricted the penalty in the decreet-arbitral, to the penalty in the submission*.

C. Home, No 117. p. 188.

* This case in Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 49. is named, Boquhan against Grossart, and dated 24th February 1739.

The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting     


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1739/Mor0200626-009.html