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!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Scottish Court of Session Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Heddle v. Gow [1880] ScotLR 18_96 (26 November 1880)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1880/18SLR0096.html
Cite as: [1880] SLR 18_96, [1880] ScotLR 18_96

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

SCOTTISH_SLR_Court_of_Session

Page: 96↓

Court of Session Inner House First Division.

[Sheriff of Midlothian.

Friday, November 26. 1880.

18 SLR 96

Heddle

v.

Gow.

Subject_1Process
Subject_2Appeal
Subject_3Competency
Subject_4Value of Cause.
Facts:

A summons raised in the Small-Debt Court, concluding for £12 as assessment under a sewerage statute, was remitted to the Sheriff's ordinary roll, and judgment given against the defender. On his appealing to the Court of Session, the appeal was, in Single Bills, dismissed as incompetent, on the ground that the value of the cause was not of the requisite value of £25, and that the appellant had not shown that a question of continuing liability was involved.

Headnote:

James Gow, S.S.C., clerk to and as representing the Water of Leith Sewerage Commissioners, sued James Heddle, rectifier, Water Street, Leith, in the Small-Debt Court at Leith, for £13, 7s. 6 1 2d., restricted to £12, being amount of assessment laid by said Commissioners on the defender's property as a “reasonable sum of money for the use of the main or branch sewers and works,” in terms of the 47th section of “The Edinburgh and Leith Sewerage Act 1864.”

The Sheriff-Substitute ( Hamilton) sent the case to the ordinary roll, and subsequently, after proof led, repelled the defences and decerned for the sum sued for.

On appeal the Sheriff ( Davidson) adhered.

The defender appealed to the Court of Session. When the case appeared in Single Bills, counsel for the respondent objected to its being sent to the roll, and craved that the appeal be dismissed as incompetent, in terms of section 22 of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1853 (16 and 17 Vict. c. 80), the value of the cause being under £25.

The appellant argued that the value of the cause was in fact over £25, as it involved a question of continuing liability.

Authorities— Drummond v. Hunter, Jan. 12, 1869, 7 Macph. 347; Macfarlane v. Friendly Society of Stornoway, Jan. 27, 1870, 8 Macph. 438.

 Judgment:

At advising—

Lord President—I do not think this question admits of any doubt. I give full effect to the fact that this case was transferred from the Small-Debt Court to the ordinary roll of the Sheriff Court, and I deal with it as if it had been originally raised there. But by the terms of the Sheriff Court Act no appeal is competent to this Court in any case the value of which is a sum under £25. Now, we arrive at the value of a cause by the conclusions of the summons; and the value in this case is only £12. But then it is argued for the appellant that the decree appealed against involves a further and continuing liability, and that the value of the case is therefore above the sum required for this appeal, and if he could have made this out there might have been some foundation for the argument. But I see no ground whatever for this view. When the assessment complained of has been paid it does not appear, or at least it is not a necessary result, that the appellant will ever have a further liability under the statute by which it is imposed, and if he had any such fear his proper remedy would be in the form of a declarator. I think we must refuse this appeal as incompetent.

Lords Deas and Mure concurred.

Lord Shand concurred, and expressed his opinion that the conclusions of the summons having been restricted by the pursuer for the express purpose of bringing the cause within the Small-Debt Court, this Court would not afterwards entertain it on the footing that it represented a larger value than £12, or inquire into the question whether or not a further liability was involved.

The Court dismissed the appeal, with expenses modified at £4, 4s.

 Counsel:

Counsel for Appellant— C. S. Dickson. Agents— Beveridge, Sutherland, & Smith, S.S.C.

Counsel for Respondent— M'Kechnie. Agent— James Gow, S.S.C.

 1880

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1880/18SLR0096.html