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 >> Brodie v. Macgregor [1901] ScotLR 39_87 (09 November 1901) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1901/39SLR0087.html Cite as: [1901] ScotLR 39_87, [1901] SLR 39_87 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 87↓
In an action of damages for breach of promise, in which the defender made averments impeaching the pursuer's chastity, the pursuer obtained a verdict for £5000. The Court having granted a new trial on the ground of excessive damages, the defender made a judicial tender of £1500 and expenses, which was refused by the pursuer. At the second trial the pursuer obtained a verdict for £500.
On a motion to apply the verdict, the Court found the pursuer entitled to expenses up to the date of the tender, and found the defender entitled to expenses after that date.
Mrs Catherine M'Ewen or Brodie brought an action against David MacGregor, in which she concluded for £30,000 in name of damages for breach of promise of marriage.
The defender denied that he had ever promised to marry the pursuer, and averred that she had endeavoured to entrap him into a promise, with the object of compelling him to marry her, or of extracting money from him. He also made averments reflecting upon the pursuer's chastity.
Page: 88↓
The case was tried at the Christmas sittings of 1900 before the Lord Justice-Clerk and a jury, when the jury found for the pursuer and assessed the damages at £5000.
The defender moved for a new trial, and on 29th May 1901 the Court granted a new trial on the ground of excessive damages. On 24th September the defender lodged a minute in which he made a tender of £1500 and expenses. The pursuer refused the tender.
The case was again tried before the Lord Justice-Clerk and a jury on 11th, 12th, and 14th October 1901, when the jury found for the pursuer, and assessed the damages at £500.
The pursuer moved for a rule on the defender to show cause why a new trial should not be granted, on the ground of insufficient damages. The Court refused a rule.
On a motion by the pursuer to apply the verdict, the defender maintained that he was entitled to all his expenses since the date of the tender, and argued that the rule was absolute that a defender who had tendered more than the pursuer recovered was entitled to all expenses since the date of the tender. The pursuer maintained that neither party should be found entitled to expenses since the date of the tender, and argued that there was no absolute rule as to expenses, the matter being entirely in the discretion of the Court. The pursuer was justified in persevering in her action in consequence of the attack made upon her character by the defender— Lawson v. Ferguson, July 10, 1866, 38 Sc. Jur. 528, 2 S.L.R. 177.
The Court found the pursuer entitled to her expenses down to 24th September 1901, and found the defender entitled to expenses since that date.
Counsel for the Pursuer— Guthrie, K.C.— Hunter. Agent— R. Ainslie Brown, S.S.C.
Counsel for the Defender— Salvesen, K.C.— M'Clure. Agents— Simpson & Marwick, W.S.
