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 >> Taylor & Co., v. Macfarlane & Co. (Ante, vol. iv., p. 33) [1867] ScotLR 5_397 (20 March 1867) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1867/05SLR0397.html Cite as: [1867] SLR 5_397, [1867] ScotLR 5_397 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 397↓
(Ante, vol. iv., p. 33).
Motion by holder of a verdict—in a case which was carried to the House of Lords by appeal on a Bill of exceptions and against interlocutor settling the issues, and in which the appeal was dismissed, — for interest from date of the verdict, refused. Observed that the Court had a discretion to award interest in a case of unreasonable litigation.
In this case, which was an action to recover damages for breach of contract, in consequence of the defender having used logwood for colouring a cargo of spirits shipped to the West Coast of Africa, (thereby injuring the marketable quality of the spirits), the pursuers, in January 1867, obtained a verdict, and the damages were assessed at £3000. The defenders presented a bill of exceptions to the judge's charge, which was unanimously disallowed, but the case was considered one of some difficulty, and the judges delivered separate opinions. An appeal was then presented to the House of Lords against the interlocutor disallowing the bill of exceptions, and also against the interlocutor settling the issues, but both the interlocutors were affirmed and the appeal was dismissed.
Gifford, for the pursuers, now moved to have the verdict applied and decree pronounced for the damages awarded, with interest from the date of the verdict, founding upon the case of Lenaghan v. The Monklands Iron Steel Co., 20 D. 848
J. M'Laren, for the defenders, contended that interest ought only to be given from the date of the interlocutor applying the verdict, citing Hurlet & Campsie Alum Co. v. Earl of Glasgow, 13 D. 370.
The Court were of opinion that they had a discretion, under the last mentioned case, to give or withhold interest. Strictly speaking, the claim could not be held to be liquidated until the verdict was applied, because, until then, the decision of jury was not final; but where a party created delay by improper litigation, interest might be given from the date of the verdict in which he ought to
Page: 398↓
Solicitors: Agents for Pursuers— Henry and Shiress, S.S.C.
Agents for Defenders— White-Millar & Robson, S.S.C.
