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 £5, 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 >> Jamieson v. Andrew [1866] ScotLR 1_179 (23 February 1866) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1866/01SLR0179.html Cite as: [1866] SLR 1_179, [1866] ScotLR 1_179 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 179↓
Question as to whether an English Solicitor who had a claim for a business account against a company which was being wound up, had a lien therefor over the company's books and papers in his possession, in a question with the official liquidator.
The question involved in this case is whether Mr George Auldjo Jamieson, C.A., the official liquidator of the Garpel Hœmatite Company (Limited), is entitled to demand delivery from Mr John Andrew, a solicitor in London, of certain books, deeds, and papers of which the liquidator requires possession to enable him to wind up the company under the Companies Clauses Act 1862. Mr Andrew admitted that he had possession of the books and papers required, but he declined to deliver them to the liquidator, on the ground that he had a lien over them for a sum of £768, 19s. 3d. due to him as the solicitor of the company. In July last, the Court, in virtue of their powers under the Winding-up Acts, appointed Mr Andrew to lodge the documents with the Clerk of Court, in order that inspection thereof in his hands might be obtained, and appointed the question of lien to be argued in writing. This having been done, the case was in the roll to-day.
The Lord President said—The liquidator, in order to facilitate matters, says he is willing to pay Mr Andrew's claim, as it may be ascertained, out of the first and readiest of the recoveries of the estate. But he disputes the accuracy of the account, and he also disputes the right of lien. In this state of matters we have not materials for determining either whether the claim is good or whether there is a right of lien. On the other hand, it is very important that the liquidation of this company should proceed, if it can proceed, without injustice to Mr Andrew. I am not satisfied that, if he has a right of lien, justice will be done to Mr Andrew by giving up the documents on the offer which the liquidator has made. The use of a lien is this—it is a sort of screw, and is often used for purposes of pressure. The documents may be worth little or nothing, but the withholding of them may often produce payment of a considerable sum. The Court therefore think that if the documents are to be placed at the liquidator's disposal, he must bind himself to pay the amount of Mr Andrew's account as it may be ascertained, in the event of the right of lien being afterwards found to exist.
The case was continued that the liquidator should consider whether or not he would undertake this obligation.
Counsel for Liquidator— Mr Gifford. Agents— Messrs Auld & Chalmers, W.S.
Counsel for Mr Andrew— Mr W. M. Thomson. Agents— Messrs C. & A. S. Douglas, W.S.
