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!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Andrew Gardiner v Robert Ewing. [1773] Hailes 511 (19 January 1773) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1773/Hailes010511-0275.html |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR DAVID DALRYMPLE, LORD HAILES.
Subject_2 DECREET - ARBITRAL.
Subject_3 No good objection found to lie on the ground of defect of proper evidence of the arbiters' having differed in opinion, so as to make way for the decision of the oversman, against decreet-arbitral pronounced by him, seeing that the decreet bore a recital of his own appointment by the two arbiters, conform to a minute subscribed by them, naming him to be their oversman, in regard they could not precisely agree touching the decision to be pronounced with respect to the matter thereby submitted; his taking upon him the determination in that capacity, and his having, in conjunction with one of the arbiters, made choice of a clerk conform to another minute, subscribed by the said arbiter and him, and produced.
Date: Andrew Gardiner
v.
Robert Ewing
19 January 1773 Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
[Dictionary, 559.]
Gardenston. I am not satisfied with the decision in Dalrymple. It is sufficient
evidence of the arbiters having differed, that the oversman undertook the office. I would never overturn decreets-arbitral upon niceties of form. But I doubt as to the reference, as it is not a probative deed: such reference is, in effect, a new submission, and ought to have all the solemnities of a submission. President. Lord Gardenston requires too much form in decreets-arbitral, while at the same time he would support the informal. The reference is an actus legitimus, and would have been good, even in the shape of a minute.
Kaimes. As to the case in Dalrymple, I presume the decreet-arbitral there was very iniquitous, and that the Court laid hold of every objection.
On the 19th January 1773, the Lords found the letters orderly proceeded; adhering to Lord Stonefield's interlocutor.
Act. Ilay Campbell. Act. W. Campbell.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting
