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 >> Mellis v Fraser [1834] CA 13_27a (14 November 1834) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1834/013SS0027a.html Cite as: [1834] CA 13_27a |
||
[New search] [Help]
Page: 27↓
Subject_Process—Reclaiming Note.—
A reclaiming note, in an advocation, dismissed as in. competent, which had not appended to it the condescendence and answers on which the record was closed in the inferior Court, the proof which was led there, and the note of additional pleas lodged in the Court of Session.
In an action of aliment by a mother against the father of her natural child, a record was made up in the Sheriff Court, by condescendence and answers, after which a proof was adduced. The Sheriff decerned against the defender, who brought an advocation. In the Court of Session, a note of additional pleas in law was lodged on both sides, and the record was thereon declared closed.
The Lord Ordinary remitted the cause simpliciter to the Sheriff, and found the advocator liable in expenses. He reclaimed, but did not append to his reclaiming note the condescendence and answers made up in the inferior Court, the proof which was there led, or the notes of additional pleas in law. He appended only the letters of advocation, containing the petition and answers, and the interlocutors of the Sheriff.
The respondent objected that the note was incompetent, in respect of the defective appendix. The Court dismissed the note as incompetent.
Solicitors: W. Allan.— T. Robertson.—Agents.
