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!
Subject_1 MEMBER of PARLIAMENT. Subject_2 DIVISION VI.
Summary Complaint to the Court of Session.
Subject_3 SECT. I.
Who must be called in a Summary Complaint. - Service of a Complaint. - To whom Competent. - Within what time Competent. - Whether a separate Complaint must be preferred by each Complainer.
Stewart v. Dalrymple
Date: 28 July 1761 Case No. No 236.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
By act of sederunt 15th November 1760, it is ordered, that each petitioner against the proceedings of freeholders shall present a separate petition for him-self, and that each petition shall complain against one defender only, except where more petitioners or defenders may be necessarily connected. Some time before this enactment, a petition had been presented in the name of several different complainers, and upon as many different grounds. Objected, It is a general rule of law, that different actions cannot be accumulated in the same libel.—The Lords repelled the objection, in respect of the practice in similar cases.
N. B. Though all the interlocutors on the questions between these parties are collected at the date of the last of them, the judgment upon this particular objection must have been prior to the act of sederunt.
Objected to the service of a summary complaint, That instead of extracting the interlocutor, the complainers had borrowed up the principal interlocutor itself, and delivered it to a messenger to be executed. Answered, The principal order has as great authority as an extract; and the method followed in this case is not unnusual, where the party is at band.— The Lords repelled the objection.
