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 >> Kennedy v. Ness [1868] ScotLR 6_215 (7 January 1868) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1868/06SLR0215.html Cite as: [1868] ScotLR 6_215, [1868] SLR 6_215 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 215↓
Amount of remuneration fixed by the Court as due to a physician by a parochial board for medical attendance on pauper patients.
This was an action raised by the executor of the late Dr Kennedy against the Parochial Board of the parish of East Wemyss, for a sum of £130, as the amount due to Dr Kennedy for professional attendance as medical officer of the Board.
It appeared that in the autumn of 1866 Dr Kennedy was employed by the Board to take charge of the district in which the village of Methil was situated, and to attend the pauper cholera patients there. He acted on this employment until his death on 11th November 1866; and, after an abortive attempt at arbitration, his executor now brought this action for £130 as the fair remuneration due to the deceased. The defenders alleged that they had offered £50 in full of the pursuer's claim, ami in respect of that offer they claimed absolvitor. After a proof, the Lord Ordinary (Jerviswoode) found that the employment was to be reckoned as extending over a period of forty-three days; that three guineas a day was a reasonable charge; and decerned for the sum concluded for, with expenses.
The Board reclaimed.
Lord Advocate (Moncreiff) and Gebbie for reclaimers.
Solicitor-General (Young) and A. Moncrieff for respondent.
The Lord President was of opinion that the Lord Ordinary had fixed the remuneration at too high a rate, proceeding apparently on a mistaken idea as to the amount of labour which Dr Kennedy had had to undergo in preparing for the approach of the cholera. He thought £66 was a fair sum to allow in the circumstances, without entering into any minute calculation as to how that amount was made up.
The respondent asked expenses.
The defenders, while admitting their liability for expenses up to the date of the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor, objected to any further liability, as they had succeeded in reducing by one-half the sum awarded by the Lord Ordinary.
The Court adopted the defenders' view.
Agents for Pursuer— Murray, Beith & Murray, W.S.
Agents for Defender— Adamson & Gulland, W.S.
