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 Jury Court Reports |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Jury Court Reports >> Paterson v. Ronald. [1820] ScotJCR 2_Murray_188 (31 January 1820) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotJCR/1820/2_Murray_188.html Cite as: [1820] ScotJCR 2_Murray_188 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 188↓
(1820) 2 Murray 188
CASES TRIED IN THE JURY COURT.
No. 33.
PRESENT, THE THREE LORDS COMMISSIONERS.
Costs refused, where the claim was for reparation of a loss, and a verdict returned for 1s.
This was a case tried at Glasgow, on the 13th September 1819, on an Issue whether a partnership was entered into, and whether the defender refused to implement, or untimously and unjustifiably withdrew from the partnership, to the loss and damage of the pursuer.
The Jury found one shilling damages.
Cockburn and Maitland moved for expences to the pursuer, as the verdict was important, by finding that the contract existed; and stated, that it was the general understanding, that the smallest damages carry costs; and referred to a case in the Court of Session, where L.10,000 were claimed, and only L.5 given, and where expences followed. Expences were also given in Finwick's case (Vol. I. p. 255); and in Millar's (Vol. I. p. 55, n.)
Page: 189↓
Forsyth, for the defender, opposed, and stated—Giving expences is matter of discretion; Hepburn's case (Vol. I. p. 267). We in fact gained our case, and are entitled to expences. A shilling in England may carry costs, but that is when the verdict establishes a right of property.
The question now before us is, whether a person claiming damages to repair an actual loss, and getting only one shilling, is entitled to his expences. This must, of course, be decided by the law of Scotland, and as it would have been decided in the Court of Session. The cases referred to on the one side, were for reparation of character, and where the object was to obtain a verdict. The case put on the other side is one to establish
Page: 190↓
Lord Chief Commissioner.—I am most anxious to decide this, and all other cases, according to the law of Scotland; and by that law, and in the Court of Session, expences is matter of discretion; but no Court can decide by discretion, without founding that discretion in sound principle. It is contended, that, in the Court of Session, damages carry costs; but that, as stated, is too extensive. My view of the present case is, that damage or not was the single question for the Jury. The question then is, upon what the claim of damage rests? The claim is for damage to repair a loss—not to repair an injury or an affront; and the claim being for L.2500, while the Jury give only 1s. I must hold it a case brought without a sufficient cause of action. If there is no rule to the contrary in the Court of Session, I must come to the conclusion, that there should be no expences.
Page: 191↓
There may be cases of nominal damages where costs ought to follow; but that is not the case in the present instance.
Both motions were dismissed.
Counsel:
Cockburn and Maitland for the Pursuer.
Forsyth for the Defender.
Solicitors: (Agents, E. Lockhart, w. s. and Jo. Grainger, w. s.)
