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!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Scottish Court of Session Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Grahame v Anderson [1837] CS 16_212 (12 December 1837)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1837/016SS0212.html
Cite as: [1837] CS 16_212

[New search] [Help]


SCOTTISH_Court_of_Session_Shaw

Page: 212

016SS0212

Grahame

v.

Anderson

No. 45

Court of Session

2d Division B

Dec. 12 1837

Ld. Cuninghame, Lord Medwyn.

Francis Grahame,     Pursuer.— Counsel:
Maidment.
Dr Charles Anderson,     Defender.— Counsel:
Wood.

Subject_Process—Amendment of the Libel—Stat. 6 Geo. IV. c. 120, § 6.— Headnote:

Not competent to receive a second amendment of the libel.


Facts:

In this action of reduction preliminary defences had been put in, and the Lord Ordinary, sustaining one of these defences, had allowed an amendment of the libel. Thereafter his Lordship, “in respect that the summons is not framed with such precision as is required by the statute, and that it does not appear to the Lord Ordinary to be competent to receive a second amendment of the libel,” sustained the preliminary defences, and dismissed the action with expenses, reserving to the pursuer to bring a new action in competent form.

The pursuer reclaimed, contending that a second amendment of the libel was competent under the 6th section of the Judicature Act, which did not refer to the state of the process in the present instance, as the Lord Ordinary was not yet preparing the case with a view to making up the record; and thus the provision of the statute not being applicable, it was necessary to revert to the old form of process which allowed successive amendments of the libel.

Lord Medwyn—It is better to bring a new action than attempt to cobble up the present one. Even supposing it to have been the old practice to allow repeated amendments of the libel, was it not the object of the new Judicature Act to put a stop to such slovenly procedure?

The other Judges concurred, and

The Court adhered, finding additional expenses due.

Solicitors: J. J. Fraser, W. S.— D. Ogilvie, W. S.—Agents.

SS 16 SS 212 1837


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1837/016SS0212.html