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 >> Taylor v. Steel-Maitland [1913] ScotLR 776 (17 June 1913) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1913/50SLR0776.html Cite as: [1913] SLR 776, [1913] ScotLR 776 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 776↓
(Single Bills.)
(Reported supra, p. 395.)
Where a Sheriff-Substitute in an interlocutor disposing of the merits of a case had sanctioned the employment of counsel in the Sheriff Court, and that interlocutor had been recalled by the Court of Session, it was held that the Auditor was entitled to treat the certificate of employment of counsel as still in force.
The arbiter appointed by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries in a reference under the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1908 (8 Edw. VII. cap. 64) between Mrs M. R. Steel-Maitland of Barnton, Midlothian ( respondent), and James Taylor, farmer at Easter Drylaw, on the said estate ( claimant and appellant), submitted a case, under section 9 of the Second Schedule of the Act, for the opinion of the Sheriff of the Lothians and Peebles at Edinburgh.
On 23rd August 1912 the Sheriff-Substitute ( Guy) pronounced an interlocutor disposing of the merits of the case and sanctioning the employment of counsel in the Sheriff Court.
The claimant appealed to the Court of Session, and on 28th January 1913 the Court recalled the interlocutor of the Sheriff-Substitute.
The respondent having been found entitled to expenses, and the Auditor having lodged his report on the respondent's account of same, the appellant objected thereto in so far as he (the Auditor) had allowed, inter alia, fee to counsel in the Sheriff Court. The ground of objection was that the interlocutor in which the Sheriff-Substitute had sanctioned the employment of counsel had been recalled, and there was no longer in force any certificate of the Sheriff entitling the Auditor to allow that fee.
The Court repelled the objection.
Counsellor the Appellant—Guild. Agents— Guild & Guild, W.S.
Counsel for the Respondent —Mitchell. Agents— John C. Brodie & Sons, W.S.
