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 >> Western Bank Liquidator v. Bairds [1866] ScotLR 2_206 (14 July 1866) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1866/02SLR0206.html Cite as: [1866] SLR 2_206, [1866] ScotLR 2_206 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 206↓
( ante, p. 172.)
Circumstances in which a motion for leave to appeal to the House of Lords refused.
In these cases, on 6th July, the Court, recalling interlocutors of Lord Kinloch, remitted to Charles Pearson, C.A., Edinburgh, to examine into the books of the bank in connection with the various accounts and transactions libelled in the summoms, with the view of simplifying the cases before sending to the jury the question of the defenders' negligence. On the intimation of this judgment, the pursuers asked for expenses, contending that the effect of it was to find that they had been substantially successful. Expenses were reserved. Thereafter the pursuers moved the Court for leave to appeal the judgment to the House of Lords.
The Lord Advocate, Millar, and Shand, in support of the motion, argued.—It is a difficult question whether the judgment of the Court in holding these actions not to fall under the enumerated auses is well founded, and the pursuers are entitled to have the review of the House of Lords on that question, because upon it depends the competency of the peculiar step which the Court has adopted. Further, besides the danger of the remit proving unavailing, the carrying of it out will be attended with considerable delay and expense.
The Dean of Faculty (with him Young, A. R. Clark, Gifford, and Lee) contended that the motion should be refuted. It was certainly odd that the pursuers, having formerly claimed the judgment in their favour and asked for expenses, should now disavow it and ask leave to appeal it to the House of Lords.
The Court unanimously refused leave to appeal.
The Lord Justice-Clerk said that the two grounds relied upon in support of the motion were just the considerations they had induced the Court towards the step they had followed. The Court were unanimous in holding that there was no doubt whatever that these actions did not fall within the enumerated causes; and they were quite satisfied that both delay and expense would be avoided by the remit which they had made.
Solicitors: Agents for Pursuers— Morton, Whitehead, & Greig, W.S.
Agents for Defenders— Webster & Sprott, S.S.C.
