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 >> Gibson v. M'Kean [1900] ScotLR 37_815 (21 June 1900) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1900/37SLR0815.html Cite as: [1900] SLR 37_815, [1900] ScotLR 37_815 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 815↓
[
In an action brought against two defenders the Lord Ordinary pronounced an interlocutor in these terms, “Sustains the first plea-in-law for the defender W, and the second plea-in-law for the defender M,” and dismissed the action. In a reclaiming-note presented by the pursuers the interlocutor prefixed thereto was printed thus—“Sustains the second plea-in-law for the defender W.”
The Court refused leave to correct the error, and dismissed the reclaiming-note as incompetent.
The Court of Session Act 1825 (6 Geo. IV. c. 120) (Judicature Act), sec. 18, provides—“That when any interlocutor shall have been pronounced by the Lord Ordinary, either of the parties dissatisfied therewith shall be entitled to apply for a review of it to the Inner House,… provided that such party shall … print and put into the boxes appointed for receiving the papers to be perused by the judges a note-reciting the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor.”
In an action at the instance of Mrs Jane Helen Gibson, with consent of her husband Robert James Gibson, S.S.C., against James Calder M'Kean and John Robert Weddell, defences were lodged for both defenders. The defender M'Kean pleaded (2) that the action was irrelevant. The defender Weddell pleaded—“(1) The action is irrelevant.”
The Lord Ordinary ( Kincairney) on 22nd February 1900 pronounced the following interlocutor;—“The Lord Ordinary having heard counsel for the parties in the procedure roll, Sustains the first plea-inlaw for the defender Weddell, and the second plea-in-law for the defender M'Kean: Dismisses the action, and decerns: Finds the defenders entitled to expenses,” &c.
The pursuers reclaimed.
In the interlocutor prefixed to the reclaiming-note, in place of the words printed in italics as above, were printed the words—“Sustains the second plea-in-law for the defender Weddell.”
The respondents objected to the competency of the reclaiming-note, and argued—Section 18 of the Judicature Act provided that the reclaimer must lodge a note reciting the interlocutor reclaimed against. What was printed was not the interlocutor pronounced by the Lord Ordinary. It omitted all reference to one of the defenders, and in the case of the other it sustained the wrong plea. The Act was
Page: 816↓
peremptory— Don v. Richardson, March 16, 1859, 21 D. 751. The reclaimers moved to be allowed to amend by substituting the correct words of the interlocutor, and cited Milne's Trustee, November 12, 1842, 5 D. 68.
The Court refused the reclaimers' motion, and dismissed the reclaiming-note as incompetent.
Counsel for the Pursuers— A. M. Anderson. Agents— Ritchie Rodger & Wallace, S.S.C.
Counsel for the Defender M'Kean— Kennedy. Agents— Gordon, Falconer, & Fairweather, W.S.
Counsel for the Defender Weddell— Gunn. Agents— Mackay & Young, W.S.
