BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Scottish Court of Session Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Macintyre v. Macraild [1866] ScotLR 1_216 (13 March 1866)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1866/01SLR0216.html
Cite as: [1866] SLR 1_216, [1866] ScotLR 1_216

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


SCOTTISH_SLR_Court_of_Session

Page: 216

Court of Session Inner House First Division.

1 SLR 216

Macintyre

v.

Macraild.

Subject_1Obligation
Subject_2Master and Servant.

Facts:

Terms of an obligation by a medical man's assistant to his employer, which held to debar the assistant from accepting an office which had been formerly held by the employer.

Headnote:

This is an application by Duncan MacIntyre, M.D., Fort-William, for interdict against Donald MacRaild, surgeon, Brecklet, South Ballachulish, “from practising medicine or surgery at the slate quarries of South Ballachulish, and in the adjacent villages of South Ballachulish, Brecklet, and Carnock, where the workmen at the said quarries reside, and from otherwise interfering with the professional practice of the complainer and his assistant, William Willoughby Cole Burton, at the said quarries and in the said villages.”

It appears that the complainer has for some time practised his profession at Fort-William and the adjoining districts of country, including the slate quarries and villages above-mentioned, which are fifteen miles from Fort-William, where he resides. It was his practice to have an assistant resident at the quarries for that part of his business, and to visit the locality himself once a week. In August 1864 he engaged the respondent as his assistant. In consequence, as the complainer alleged, of his having heard that the respondent was seeking to undermine or supplant him, he remonstrated with the respondent, and on 28th November 1864 the latter wrote out and signed the following obligation:—

“I, Donald MacRaild, licentiate of the Faculty of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow, who have been and still am medical and surgical assistant to and for Duncan MacIntyre, doctor of medicine, Fort-William, at the Slate Quarries, South Ballachulish, for the last three months, a capacity in which I always acted consistent with professional honour and the said Duncan MacIntyre's interest, do hereby solemnly bind myself to continue to do so as long as my connection with him as assistant lasts: But whereas it has been represented to the said Duncan MacIntyre that his connection with me affected the safety of his present position, or tended to do so, in so far as it appears I have been represented to him as using direct or indirect means to undermine and usurp his charge or practice at Ballachulish; in order to vindicate my own professional honour, and to relieve the said Duncan MacIntyre from any anxiety arising from or caused by any such misrepresentations for the present or the future, and in proof of my integrity, I bind and oblige myself, under a penalty of £500 sterling, in case of infringement on my part, that after my connection with the said Duncan MacIntyre, as his assistant, has ceased, I shall not accept of the practice of the slate quarries in the case of its being offered to me, to his exelusion and disadvantage, at any future period, and that I shall never take advantage of any introductions or insight into his affairs the exigencies of my relations with him as his assistant require I should have and know, thereby settling down in his vicinity, and practising to his detriment or in opposition to him in any of the districts in which he practises his profession: Be it therefore known that, in the event of my infringement on this agreement or promise, or any part thereof, the said sum of £500 sterling is to be paid by me to the said Duncan MacIntyre or his heirs or executors: This agreement, in so far as my engagement is concerned, shall subsist until one month's previous intimation that it is to terminate shall be given by me to, or received by me from, the said Duncan MacIntyre. In witness whereof, these presents, written on this and the preceding page by my own hand, are subscribed by me at Fort-William the 28th November 1864.”

The respondent's engagement with the complainer terminated on 3d November 1865, when he left the quarries, but he returned on 5th December, as the complainer alleged, “for the avowed purpose of practising there as a medical man in opposition to the complainer, in violation alike of professional honour and his foresaid obligation.” The respondent's statement, on the other hand, was that after he left the quarries, an advertisement appeared in the Glasgow Herald for a resident registered practitioner; that, knowing that the complainer would not accept such an appointment, he applied for it, and was appointed. He said that before he applied the complainer had ceased to hold his office at the quarries; that it had been decided that he should not be continued as medical man there, because he was non-resident; and that, if he had not been appointed, a Mr Wilson, of Bathgate, would have been. In these circumstances, he pleaded that he had not violated his obligation.

Judgment:

The Lord Ordinary (Mure) passed the note and granted interim interdict on caution. The respondent reclaimed, and the Court to-day adhered.

The Lord President said—The real question is whether or not there shall be an interim interdict? The complainer's case mainly rests on the obligation, which is a peculiar document. The respondent's case is that, after he resigned his position as assistant, a vacancy occurred in the office, and that he applied and was appointed. He states also that if he had not been appointed, a Mr Wilson, of Bathgate, who was also a candidate, would have been. We have not much evidence as to this at present; but so it was that Mr MacRaild was elected and returned as medical man to the quarries. The complainer says this is an infringement of the obligation. The document is very stringent, and I do not see very well how it is possible to hold that Mr MacRaild has not fallen under the provisions of his own obligation. He has accepted the office. The complainer says he has done so to his detriment. Mr MacRaild, on the other hand, says that it has not been to his detriment. I think that the acceptance of office was the thing meant to be provided against, and that Mr MacRaild has no right to say—“I shall continue to practise until it shall be ascertained whether my actings have been detrimental or not.” I am therefore for refusing this reclaiming note.

Lord Curriehill—I have no doubt of the legality and efficacy of this obligation. I think its true import is that Mr MacRaild was not to compete with Dr MacIntyre for the office, nor to accept of the office even if offered ‘to him, which was the surest way of preventing competition. Thus construing the obligation, the respondent's admissions amount to a violation of it. It is of consequence also to keep in view that the interim interdict has been granted only on caution by Dr MacIntyre. If he fails ultimately in the action he and his cautioner will be responsible for all damage the respondent may suffer. On the other hand, if we were to refuse

Page: 217

the interdict Mr MacRaild would in the meantime go on practising, and that without caution, which he says he cannot find.

Lord Deas—I agree that this agreement is legal, and I also consider that it is a most equitable kind of agreement. It is not fair that a medical man should be deprived by his assistant of a practice which it has taken him years to form, and unless such an agreement was legal the younger members of the medical profession would never be appointed assistants. I also agree with Lord Curriehill that the construction of this obligation is that the respondent was not to accept the office. In my view the agreement would be the same, if the words “to his detriment” were not in it. I think they would have been implied in what preceded. Although we cannot now in point of form finally decide this case, my opinion proceeds upon the merits of it, and I think the parties should consider the propriety of discontinuing the litigation.

Lord Ardmillan also concurred.

Counsel:

Counsel for Complainer— Mr Patton and Mr N. C. Campbell. Agent— Mr John Patten, W.S.

Counsel for Respondent—The Solicitor-General and Mr Shand. Agents— Messrs Webster & Sprott, S.S.C.

1866


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1866/01SLR0216.html