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!
You are here:BAILII >>
Databases >>
Scottish Court of Session Decisions >>
James and William Duffs v Laurence Sutherland. [1793] Mor 14981 (7 December 1793)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1793/Mor3414981-021.html Cite as:
[1793] Mor 14981
When a Magistrate illegally refuses to imprison a debtor, or detains money consigned in his hands, redress may be obtained by a summary petition and complaint.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Thomas Gordon having been by decree-arbitral ordained to pay a sum of money to James and William Duffs, on receiving certain papers from them specified in the decree, he was apprehended on a caption at their instance, and presented to Laurence Sutherland, one of the Bailies of Elgin, for imprisonment. Gordon, in his presence, offered to pay the money, provided the papers were delivered to him. The creditors were present, but had not the papers in their possession. Gordon then consigned the money with Sutherland, to remain in his hands till the papers were delivered, upon which the latter refused to imprison him.
The Duffs afterwards made a summary application to the Court, in which they complained of these and certain subsequent steps of Sutherland's conduct, particularly of his detaining the money after the papers were delivered, on pretence of an arrestment executed in his hands by Gordon, on the dependence of a reduction of the decree-arbitral which had been raised by him.
The defender objected to the competency of the complaint, contending, that in so far as it related to his refusal to imprison Gordon, an ordinary action ought, according to the practice in similar cases, to have been brought against him, and that the propriety of his detaining the money could only be determined in a multiple-poinding.
The complainers, on the other hand, stated, that the ground of their complaint, being the alleged malversation of a public officer in the execution of his duty, warranted the present application; Angus against Ferrier, No. 13. p. 14976.
The Court, upon advising the petition and complaint, with answers, replies, and duplies, unanimously “sustained the complaint.”
Act. Wolfe Murray, Ja. Gordon.Alt. M. Ross.Clerk, Gordon.
Fol. Dic. v. 4. p. 311. Fac. Coll. No. 83. p. 180.
