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 >> Livingston of Parkhall v York Building Company. [1776] 5 Brn 455 (28 November 1776) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1776/Brn050455-0447.html |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION. reported by ALEXANDER TAIT, CLERK OF SESSION, one of the reporters for the faculty.
Subject_2 FORM OF PROCESS.
Date: Livingston of Parkhall
v.
York Building Company
28 November 1776 Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In the case, Livingston Mitchell of Parkhall against the York Building Company, concerning the property of the coal of Craigend, a final interlocutor had been pronounced by the Lords, in presence, in July last; against which no reclaiming petition having been presented, the day elapsed In the vacance, however, upon a search of his papers, the petitioner found certain papers, of which he was totally ignorant before, and which he judged material in the cause. He therefore, 23d November 1776, presented a reclaiming petition, founding upon these instrumenta noviter reperta; which he alleged took the case from under the Act of Sederunt. At moving the petition in Court, the Lords put the question to the petitioner, if he was willing, in the first place, to pay all the expenses which the York Building Company had already been put to in the cause? He declined paying the past expense, but said he was willing, if the petition was ordered to be answered, to pay the expense of the answers. The Lords, upon a minute to this effect being prefixed, refused the petition.
It seemed to be their opinion that instrumenta noviter reperta would take a, case from under the Act of Sederunt as to the reclaiming days; but, in this case, as the papers were found in the party’s own possession, they thought it
reasonable that, ante omnia, he should reimburse the other party of their expense.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting