Scottish Court of Session Decisions

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 REPARATION

Dr John Memis
v.
The Managersof the Infirmary at Aberdeen

Date: 30 November 1776

Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy

In making an English translation of the Latin charters of the Infirmary at Aberdeen, Joannes Memis, medicinæ doctor, was translated John Memis, doctor of medicine. Dr Memis contended that it should have been translated Dr John Memis, physician in Aberdeen; that it was translated doctor of medicine with a view of throwing contempt upon him, and that it had greatly hurt him in his business. He applied therefore to the Managers of the Infirmary to have the translation altered; which they refused to do, although, in another place of the charter, the words duo Medicinæ Doctorum in Aberdonia had been translated thus, two of the physicians in Aberdeen. Upon this refusal he brought an action before the Court, concluding to have the charter altered and reprinted with his proper designation of Physician, and for damages and costs of suit. On the other hand, the Managers of the Infirmary contended that this action was trifling and litigious. That Doctor of Medicine is a proper, just, and literal translation of the Latin Doctor Medicinæ in the Scotch idiom: That it is a title synonymous with Physician; and that there was no animus injuriandi against Dr Memis, which the defenders, when put upon their oath by the Doctor himself in the course of this cause, had solemnly denied; and, as to any damages following upon it, it is without a shadow of proof, and imaginary.

The Lords sustained the defences, assoilyied the defenders, and found Dr Memis liable in expenses of process. The expenses claimed were above £100; but the Lords, 21st December 1776, modified them to £40, and the expense of the extract.

That there was no strong animus injuriandi to hurt Dr Memis seemed admitted; at the same time it appeared a conduct rather peevish and uncivil in his brethren, and an intentional affront, to refuse to gratify the Doctor in this request. But the Lords thought that they did not meet to decide what was civil, but what was wrong. In this case there was no wrong ; the translation was good, no damage had followed, or could follow upon it, and therefore the action was foolish and wrong-headed.