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 >> Crichton v Russell [1837] CS 16_206 (9 December 1837) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1837/016SS0206.html Cite as: [1837] CS 16_206 |
[New search] [Help]
Page: 206↓
Subject_Inhibition—Reparation.—
A patentee raised an action for damages, stated at £2000, on account of alleged infringement of the patent; and he used inhibition on the dependence; the defender denied the libel, and, while a record was in preparation, applied for recal of the inhibition; the pursuer consented to the recal on caution for £700, and the Court, in the circumstances, refused to recal it except on caution to that amount.
In May, 1836, James Russell of Bescothall, Staffordshire, who held a patent for the manufacture of gas-tubes, raised an action against Andrew Crichton, smith, and gas-tube manufacturer in Glasgow, setting forth that Crichton was infringing the patent, and craving interdict, and a sum of £2000 of damages. Crichton denied the libel, but refused to allow inspection of his process of manufacturing gas-tubes, stating that it was a secret process, unprotected by patent, and that it would lose all its value if inspected and disclosed. After some discussion on this subject, the Court, on 1st June, 1837, allowed inspection under certain conditions. 1
In June, 1836, Russell had used inhibition on the dependence. Crichton now applied to have it recalled, on caution for £500, or such other sum as the Court should modify. Russell consented to the recal, but only on caution to the amount of £700. He pleaded, that inhibition was an important branch of diligence, allowed for the security of contingent creditors, and that, though the Court possessed the equitable power of controlling it, wherever it appeared to be abused, yet, unless some grounds were stated to show that it was carried to a ruinous or oppressive extent, they would not interfere. In the present instance nothing whatever was stated to show that the inhibition had not been fairly used; and as the patent itself expired in April, 1839, and the petitioner was persevering in his manufacture, it was necessary to give full protection to the respondent.
_________________ Footnote _________________
1 Russell (ante, XV. 1270).
The Court accordingly recalled the inhibition, but only on caution being found by the petitioner to the amount of L.700.
Solicitors: Fisher and Duncan, S. S. C. — J. Macandrew, S. S. C. — Agents.