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 >> Howard v. Muir [1870] ScotLR 7_520 (9 June 1870) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1870/07SLR0520.html Cite as: [1870] ScotLR 7_520, [1870] SLR 7_520 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 520↓
The process in an appeal having been obtained by the appellant on a borrowing receipt from the the Clerk of the Division, Held (1) it was not necessary to return the process within fourteen days after the appeal had been received; and (2) the transmission from the Clerk of the Inferior Court to the Clerk of the Division effected the lodging of the process.
This appeal was taken during Session; and, within fourteen days after the process had been received by the Clerk of the Division, the appellant had printed and boxed the note of appeal, record, interlocutors, and proof. But his agent did not within this period return the process itself, which was held from the Clerk on the usual borrowing receipt. At the calling in the single bills, the Clerk said there was no process, and that the provision of the A. S. had not been complied with.
Brand, for the appellant, stated that the enactment of the A. S. as to printing and boxing had been only complied with, that the words “Lodge and Furnish” in the section, referred only to unprinted or partially unprinted appeals, and that the process itself had already been lodged by being transmitted by the Clerk of the Inferior Court to the Clerk of the Division.
The Court held that the matter was regulated by the A. S., without reference to the 71st section of the Court of Session Act 1868, and that the acts done by the appellant or his agent amounted to a full compliance with the Act of Sederunt, there being nothing therein said as to lodging the process, which became “lodged” by the transmission from the Inferior Court to the Division.
The appeal was accordingly sent to the roll.
Agent for Appellant— A. K. Mackie, S.S.C.
