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 >> Longworth v. Hope and Cooke. (Ante, vol. i., p. 53.) [1866] ScotLR 2_12 (18 May 1866) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1866/02SLR0012.html Cite as: [1866] ScotLR 2_12, [1866] SLR 2_12 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 12↓
( Ante, vol. i., p. 53.)
A party not appearing to support a motion for a rule, the Court held the motion as passed from.
The trial of this case resulted in a verdict for the defenders. The pursuer, immediately after the verdict, gave notice of a motion for a rule on the defenders to show cause why a new trial should not be granted. This motion was in the roll to-day for hearing, but no one appeared for the pursuer.
Shand, for the defenders, read a letter dated the 14th instant, which had been addressed to their agents by Mr James Somerville, S. S. C., in which he stated that he had ceased to act as agent for the pursuer.
Campbell Smith, who had formerly acted as counsel for the pursuer, was sent for, and he stated that he had ceased to act as the pursuer's counsel on Saturday last. He also stated, in answer to the Lord President, that he believed the pursuer was aware that her motion was set down for to-day for hearing.
The Court, in these circumstances, held the notice of motion as passed from by the pursuer, recalled the sist of procedure which had been granted when the notice of motion was given, and remitted to the Lord Ordinary to apply the verdict of the jury.
Solicitors: Agents for Defenders— Morton, Whitehead, & Greig, W. S.
