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'Donald v. M'Donalds [1879] ScotLR 16_602 (7 June 1879) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1879/16SLR0602.html Cite as: [1879] SLR 16_602, [1879] ScotLR 16_602 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 602↓
[
(Ante, Jan. 16, 1879, and March 18, 1879, pp. 271 and 460).
In a petition for disentail, where a number of questions had arisen between the petitioning heir in possession and the second and third heirs in regard to the value of their expectancies in the entailed estate, and a great amount of litigation ensued, in which the petitioner was substantially successful— Held that in the circumstances neither party were entitled to expenses.
This case has already been reported (Jan. 16, and March 18, 1879, ante pp. 271 and 460), and the present question arose in regard to the expenses connected with the litigation which was the subject of the previous reports. After the proceedings reported ante, pp. 460, the case was remitted to the Lord Ordinary to proceed in accordance with the findings of their Lordships of the Second Division, and Lord Adam (Ordinary) after various procedure, and after having obtained reports from men of skill, pronounced the following interlocutor:—“In respect of consignation, in terms of the preceding interlocutor of May 27 current, dispenses with the consent of the respondents . . . Approves of the instrument of disentail: Interpones authority thereto, …. and decerns; and having heard counsel on the question of expenses, finds no expenses due.”
The respondents reclaimed, but afterwards stated that they would not offer argument against it. The petitioner then asked for the expenses of the litigation so far as the respondents had been unsuccessful. The Court held that the questions being novel and difficult, the respondents were entitled to appear in the circumstances, and refused the motion, but the Second Division adhered.
Counsel for Petitioner— Balfour— Pearson. Agent— A. P. Purves, W.S.
Counsel for Respondent— Kinnear— Robertson. Agents— Webster, Will, & Ritchie, S.S.C.
