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 >> M'Kean v. Lorimer & Moyes [1877] ScotLR 14_274 (27 January 1877) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1877/14SLR0274.html Cite as: [1877] SLR 14_274, [1877] ScotLR 14_274 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 274↓
Circumstances in which an application to be reponed against decree by default was refused.
The complainer M'Kean brought a suspension of a charge for £9, 11s. 10
d, given under a protested bill by the respondents. When the case came before the Lord Ordinary in the Bill Chamber he proposed “that he should be allowed to decide it as on a passed note, and upon the footing that his judgment should be final.” The respondents were willing to assent to this course, but the complainer declined. The note was accordingly passed and a record made up in the usual way. The complainer did not lodge his print in time, and thereby caused some delay; and when the record had been closed and the case enrolled in the Motion Roll on December 19th, in order that it might be sent to the Debate Roll, the Lord Ordinary suggested, and parties agreed, that the case, being one requiring despatch, should be disposed of on the following Friday. When that time came there was no appearance for the complainer, and after the case had been repeatedly called without any appearance by counsel or agent on behalf of the complainer, the Lord Ordinary repelled the reasons of suspension and found the charge orderly proceeded. Against this interlocutor the complainer asked to be reponed, offering to pay such expenses as had been caused by the delay. 1 2
The Court refused the application.
Page: 275↓
Counsel for Complainer— Lang. Agent— Thomas Lawson, S.S.C.
Counsel for Respondent— A. J. Young. Agent— D. Howard Smith, Solicitor.