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 >> Petition - Russell and Mandatory [1873] ScotLR 10_314 (8 March 1873) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1873/10SLR0314.html Cite as: [1873] ScotLR 10_314, [1873] SLR 10_314 |
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 314↓
( Ante, p. 170.)
A father and his mandatory, (he being in America) having petitioned the Court to order custody of his child to be given to his sister, prayer of the petition granted.
This was a petition presented by James Russell, and his mandatory Mr J. L. Lang, Writer, Glasgow. The petitioner is now in America, and he asked that the custody of his child, who has for some time back been living in family in Glasgow with the respondents—Mary and Annie Hill—should be given over to his sister, Mrs Elizabeth Russell or Morrison, who is also living in Glasgow. He stated that he left his child with his sister on his departure for America, and that he believed her to be perfectly qualified to undertake the child's guardianship, but that shortly after his departure the respondents took the child from his sister, on a false representation that they were authorised by him to do so. The Misses Hill, who were sisters of the petitioner's deceased wife, stated in answer that an arrangement was made in the hearing of the petitioner, before he went to America, that they should undertake the guardianship of their sister's child, and that they had accordingly kept and clothed it since his departure. For this expenditure no arrangement was made as to remuneration. They had become much attached to the child, and they alleged that the present petition was the result of ill-will which the petitioner conceived to the defenders from other circumstances, and not of a desire for the good or welfare of the child. In any circumstances, they urged that they were entitled to be repaid or have sufficient security for the repayment of the sums disbursed by them before delivering up the child.
At advising:—
The Court unanimously granted the prayer of the petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner— Watson and J. L. Lang. Agents— Muir & Fleming, S.S.C.
Counsel for the Respondents— Fraser and Rhind. Agents— Drummond & Mackenzie, S.S.C.