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 >> M'George, Cowan & Galloway v. Steele [1871] ScotLR 9_101 (23 November 1871) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1871/09SLR0101.html Cite as: [1871] SLR 9_101, [1871] ScotLR 9_101 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 101↓
A vague averment, that the pursuers had failed to restore certain letters entrusted to them, held not to constitute a relevant defence in an action for payment of a business account.
This was an action for payment of certain business accounts.
The defender stated that he was, and had been all along, willing to pay the accounts (with a trifling exception), as the same might be taxed, and upon the pursuers restoring to him certain letters and documents which he averred had been entrusted by him to their care.
With regard to these letters, the pursuers, who are writers in Glasgow, averred that they had been produced by them under diligence, and had formed part of the process in the action for which the accounts had been incurred; that they had been borrowed by the opposite agent; that they, the pursuers, had instructed their Edinburgh correspondents to adopt proceedings to enforce delivery, but after some steps had been taken, the defender intimated that he would not hold himself responsible for the expense, and that they accordingly ceased to carry out the proceedings they had commenced.
The answer of the defender to this averment was—“ Admitted that the letters were handed by him to the pursuers in the course of his employment of them, and with reference to the matters upon which they were employed as his agents. The defender does not know what afterwards became of them; and does not admit the statements here made. Explained that the defender has lately repeatedly required the pursuers to restore the said documents, but they have failed and decline, and now decline, to do so.”
He pleaded—“(1) The pursuers are not entitled to demand payment from the defender of the amount of their accounts against him while they refuse to deliver up the letters and documents belonging to him with which they had been entrusted on his behalf, and the defender should therefore be assoilzied. (2) The defender having offered, and been all along and being now willing, to pay to the pursuers the amount of their accounts as taxed, upon receiving back from them his said letters and documents, the present action was unnecessary, and ought to be dismissed, and the pursuers found liable in expenses.”
The Lord Ordinary ( Jerviswoode) found “that the averments set forth on the part of the defender on the record, and on which the first and second pleas in law on his behalf are rested, are not relevant in defence against the conclusions of the present action.”
The defender reclaimed, and shortly after consigned the sum claimed.
Solicitor-General and Maclean for him.
The
Defender's counsel having taken time to consider whether they should amend the record, so as to make their averments more specific, declined to do so.
The Court observed that the defender's statements did not approach to relevancy.
Adhere, with expenses.
Solicitors: Agent for Pursuers— William Ellis, W.S.
Agent for Defender— Alexander Morison, S.S.C.
