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 >> Pollock v Harkness [1835] CA 13_1072 (7 July 1835) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1835/013SS1072.html Cite as: [1835] CA 13_1072 |
||
[New search] [Help]
Page: 1072↓
Subject_Process—Reclaiming Note.—
Reclaiming note against an interlocutor on default to lodge a bond of caution, and praying to be reponed on lodging juratory caution, refused as incompetent, in respect that six copies had not been furnished to the opposite agent, though no record had been made up, but defences had been lodged.
In an action by Pollock against Harkness and Others, defences were lodged, in which it was urged, that the pursuer, being an undischarged bankrupt, was bound to find caution for expenses. The Lord Ordinary accordingly appointed the pursuer to lodge in process a bond to that effect; and, upon his failing to do so, decerned in favour of the defenders. On the last of the reclaiming days, the pursuer boxed a reclaiming note against this interlocutor, praying the Court to repone him “on his lodging a bond of juratory caution for the expenses of process.”
The defenders objected to the competency of receiving this note, in respect that six copies of it were not delivered to their agent, in terms of the 18th section of the Judicature act.
The pursuer answered—that this was not a case where it was necessary that six copies of the note should be furnished to the opposite agent, the interlocutor reclaimed against not being an interlocutor in causa, and no record having been made up.
The parties having been ordered by the Court to put in minutes, stating the authorities on which they founded, the defenders lodged a minute, to which the pursuer gave in no answer.
The Court refused the note as incompetent.
Defender's Authorities.— Bell v. Warden, July 2, 1830 (ante, VIII., 1007); Williams, Foster, and Company, February 2, 1832 (ante, X., 283); A. v. B. July 5, 1833; Farquharson v. Sim, November 14, 1833; Roberts v. Roberts, November 14, 1833.
Solicitors: James Bennett, W. S.— Andrew Feaser, W. S.—Agents.
