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 >> Bloe v. Bloe [1882] ScotLR 19_646 (6 June 1882) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1882/19SLR0646.html Cite as: [1882] ScotLR 19_646, [1882] SLR 19_646 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 646↓
( Ante, 13th May 1882, p. 595 supra.)
In a petition by a husband for access to the child of the marriage between him and the respondent, his wife, the Court granted the prayer of the petition, but found him liable in the wife's expenses in respect that the petition was premature. Thereafter the wife left the country, taking the child with her, and leaving her agents in ignorance of her departure or of where she had gone. In these circumstances the Court refused hoc statu a motion for decree for the expenses in name of the wife's agents as agents-disbursers.
The respondent's agents having enrolled the case for approval of the Auditor's report on the respondent's account of expenses, and having moved for decree in their own names as agents-disbursers, the petitioner objected, stating that since the last calling the respondent had failed to obtemper the order of the Court by delivering up the child to him in terms of the interlocutor of 13th May, and had, as he was informed, left the country, taking the child with her. He submitted that in these circumstances the petitioner should not be required to pay the expenses of a litigation with his wife in which he had succeeded, at least until she should obey the order of Court pronounced in his favour. He also maintained that the motion should not be granted because he was entitled to follow up the child and recover the expense of so doing from the wife's separate estate, and then set off the amount against the expenses found due by him— Portobello Pier Co. v. Clift, 16th Mar. 1877, 4 R. 685.
The respondent's counsel argued—That inasmuch as the wife's agents were in no way to blame for the disappearance of the petitioner's wife and child, the expenses which had been disbursed on her behalf, and to which she had been found entitled, ought to be paid them in accordance with the usual custom.
At advising—
The Court refused the motion in hoc statu.
Counsel for Petitioner— Rhind. Agent— W. Officer, S.S.C.
Counsel for Respondent— Guthrie. Agents— Henderson & Clark, W.S.
