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 >> Taylor and Others v. M'Gavigan and Another [1896] ScotLR 33_569 (21 May 1896) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1896/33SLR0569.html Cite as: [1896] ScotLR 33_569, [1896] SLR 33_569 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 569↓
Held (following Baird V. Barton, June 22, 1882, 9 R. 970, and Crellin's Trustee v. Muirhead's Judicial Factor, October 21, 1893, 21 R. 21) that an interlocutor decerning for and modifying expenses, pronounced after an interlocutor disposing of the cause otherwise, and reserving the question of expenses, may be reclaimed against at any time within twenty-one days from its date.
In this action the Lord Ordinary (
Kincairney ) pronounced an interlocutor on 20th January 1896, in the following terms:—“Having resumed consideration of the cause … assoilzies the defenders from the whole conclusions of the summons, and decerns: Finds the defenders entitled to expenses, of which allows an account to be given in, and remits it when lodged to the Auditor of Court to tax and to report: Reserving as to modification.”On 7th March 1896 the Lord Ordinary pronounced the following interlocutor “Approves of the Auditor's report: … Finds that the taxed amount thereof is £77, 15s. 9d., and having heard counsel on the question of modification, modifies the taxed amount to the sum of £67, 5s. 9d., and decerns against the pursuers for payment to the defenders of that amount accordingly.”
On 20th March, being the thirteenth day after the date of this interlocutor, the pursuers presented a reclaiming-note, which was objected to by the defenders as incompetent.
Argued for the defenders—Under the Court of Session Act 1850 (13 and 14 Vict. cap. 36), sec. 11, this was an interlocutor which could only be reclaimed against within ten days, and it had been so expressly decided in Cowper v. Callender, Jan. 19, 1872, 10 Macph. 353. No doubt a reclaimingnote against an interlocutor dealing with expenses brought the previous interlocutors under review (Crellin's Trustee v. Muirhead's Judicial Factor, Oct. 21, 1893, 21 R. 21), but that reclaiming-note must be presented within the statutory time, and Crellin had decided nothing to the contrary.
Argued for the pursuers—The reclaimingnote was competent. Crellin's Trustee ( ut sup.) had decided that an interlocutor such as this was not merely executorial, but was a final interlocutor disposing of the merits of the case, and could therefore be reclaimed against to the effect of submitting the whole case to review.— Baird v. Barton, June 22, 1882, 9 R. 970, had settled that such an interlocutor might be reclaimed against within twenty-one days. Cowper could not stand against Baird, especially as it had been decided purely on a construction of the Court of Session Act 1850, sec. 11. The ruling statutory provision here was the 53rd section of the Court of Session Act 1868.
At advising—
Lord President—In my opinion this case is ruled by Baird v. Barton and Crellin's Trustee v. Muirhead's Judicial Factor. The reclaiming-note is therefore competent.
The Court sent the reclaiming-note to the roll.
Counsel for the Pursuers and Reclaimers— M'Lennan. Agents— Cumming & Duff, S.S.C.
Counsel for the Defenders and Respondents— Younger. Agents— Carmichael & Miller, W.S.
