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 >> Young v. Anderson [1865] ScotLR 1_44_1 (28 November 1865) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1865/01SLR0044_1.html Cite as: [1865] ScotLR 1_44_1, [1865] SLR 1_44_1 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 44↓
(1) Averments that an arbiter had exceeded his powers, which held irrelevant; and (2) proof allowed before answer of averments that he had acted corruptly.
These were conjoined actions of suspension of a charge on, and reduction of, a decree arbitral. The parties were partners in the working of the Bartonshill Colliery. They dissolved partnership on 28th February 1863, and appointed Mr William Moore, C.E., in Glasgow, as sole arbiter, with full power to dispose of “all disputes and differences that have arisen or may arise betwixt them.” Mr Moore pronounced decree against the pursuer for considerable sums, whereupon this litigation commenced. The grounds of reduction were that the arbiter had exceeded his powers (1) in decerning for a debt claimed by the firm from the pursuer as a third party, while the submission was limited to questions arising betwixt the parties as partners of the firm; (2) in setting aside and disregarding an agreement and docqueted account betwixt the parties; and (3) in disregarding certain invoices rendered by the defender to the pursuer, and debiting the pursuer with much larger quantities of coal than these invoices warranted. The pursuer also alleged that the arbiter had acted corruptly in delegating his duties to the clerk to the submission, in pronouncing judgment without sufficient evidence and otherwise.
Both parties reclaimed, and to-day the Court adhered, and remitted to the Lord Ordinary to allow a proof before answer of such of the statements on record as he should think proper.
Counsel for Pursuer—The Solicitor-General and Mr Gifford. Agents— Messrs Baxter & Mitchell, W.S.
Counsel for Defender— Mr Gordon and Mr Mackenzie. Agents— Messrs Ellis, W.S.