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 >> M'Murrich v. Holmes [1920] ScotLR 523 (09 June 1920) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1920/57SLR0523.html Cite as: [1920] SLR 523, [1920] ScotLR 523 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 523↓
(Single Bills.)
In an action of seduction and filiation the pursuer had obtained decree in the sheriff court, and the defender had appealed to the Court of Session and thereafter had gone to Canada. The pursuer had arrested £124 belonging to the defender, and moved for his being ordained to sist a mandatory. The Court ordained the defender to sist a mandatory.
Jeanie Holmes, Kilbarchan, pursuer, brought an action in the Sheriff Court at Paisley, against John M'Murrich, ploughman, Kilbarchan, defender, in which she craved damages for seduction and inlying expenses, and aliment of an illegitimate child. On 3rd February 1920 the Sheriff-Substitute ( Blair) found the pursuer entitled to £100 as damages for seduction, £3, 3s. as inlying expenses, and £12, 14s. annually for
Page: 524↓
fourteen years as aliment for the child. The defender appealed to the Court of Session, and the pursuer lodged a note in which she stated, inter alia—“The defender, who is a domiciled Scotsman, had been resident in this country for several years before the action was raised, and he remained in Scotland until about the month of March last. The pursuer and respondent has just learned that he then left for Canada, where he has now taken up his permanent abode. He has no heritable property in Canada.” She craved the Court to ordain the defender and appellant to sist a mandatory. On the case appearing in the Single Bills of the Second Division counsel for the pursuer moved in terms of the prayer of the note. It was admitted at the bar that the pursuer had arrested on the dependence of the action £124 of the defender's funds. Argued for the pursuer—The defender should be ordained to sist a mandatory— D'Ernesti v. D' Ernesti, 1882, 9 R. 655, per Lord Shand at p. 658, 19 S.L.R. 436; Young v. Carter, 1906, 14 S.L.T. 411 and 829; Mackay's Manual, p. 235; Shand's Practice, p. 159. In Florence v. Smith, 1913 S.C. 393, 50 S.L.R. 267, where the motion was refused, the defender had been assoilzied, and had left the country bona fide for the purposes of his business.
Argued for the defender—The motion should be refused. The sisting of a mandatory lay in the discretion of the Court, and in the case of a defender that discretion was liberally interpreted— Simla Bank v. Home, 1870, 8 Macph. 781, 7 S.L.R. 487; Aitkenhead v. Bunten & Company, 1892, 19 R. 803, 29 S.L.R. 659. In the present case the pursuer had arrested £124 of the defender's funds, which would more than cover the expenses.
The Court—
Counsel for the Pursuer and Respondent— J. M. Hunter. Agents— Pairman, Miller, & Murray, S.S.C.
Counsel for the Defender and Appellant— Crawford. Agents— Laing & Motherwell, W.S.
