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 £5, 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!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> The Duke of Athol, Bisset, and Edwards, v Murray. [1751] 2 Elchies 304 (16 January 1751) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1751/Elchies020304-053.html Cite as: [1751] 2 Elchies 304 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
[1751] 2 Elchies 304
Subject_1 JURISDICTION.
Date: The Duke of Athol, Bisset, and Edwards,
v.
Murray
16 January 1751
Case No.No. 53.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The Duke of Athol, Bisset, and Edwards, having pursued reduction of a bail-bond taken by him from Bisset and Edwards for his servant Murray, whom he was to employ under him to collect customs at Alloa, for L.1000 sterling in the King's name, and likewise reduction of accounts stated betwixt Grosset and Murray, making Murray debtor in L.1100 sterling, on the head of fraud and circumvention, both in eliciting these bonds from the
pursuers, and in fitting the accounts with Murray, and concluding for repetition of L.500 sterling, paid by the Duke of Athol to Grosset as Bisset's half of that bond; the Lords thought, that the Exchequer alone was the proper Court for such a process, especially so long as any part of the money was due to the Crown, though if it had been fraudulently elicited by a third party not debtor in the bond, such fraud might have been tried in this Court to the effect of giving damages; but as against the granters of the bond, we thought it behoved to produce a collision of jurisdictions, there having already issued extents on that bond, a plea entered of conditions performed and issue joined. Our interlocutor finds, that we have no jurisdiction to proceed, while the suit against Edwards depends in Exchequer. (See Dict. No. 78. p. 7341.)
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting