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!



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

Scottish Court of Session Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Campbell v. Campbell [1866] ScotLR 2_6 (16 May 1866)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1866/02SLR0006.html
Cite as: [1866] SLR 2_6, [1866] ScotLR 2_6

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

SCOTTISH_SLR_Court_of_Session

Page: 6↓

Court of Session Whole Court.

Wednesday, May 16. 1866

2 SLR 6

Campbell

v.

Campbell.

Subject_1Declinator.
Subject_2
Subject_3

Facts:

A Judge having declined on the ground that the mandatory of one of the parties was his brother-in-law, the declinator sustained.

Judgment:

Lord Kinloch stated that the advocator, Mr Campbell of Boreland, was his nephew by affinity, being the son of his wife's sister, but that, after the recent decision in regard to the declinator of the Lord President in the case of Gordon v. Gordon's Trustees, he did not suppose that this relationship would be sufficient to entitle him to decline. But there was another party to this case—namely, General Campbell, who was mandatory for the advocator. He was his Lordship's brother-in-law, being his wife's brother. This relationship, his Lordship continued, was a clear disqualification, for it was decided in the case of Ommaney v. Smith, 13th February 1851, 13 D. 678, not only that a mandatory's brother-in-law could not act as judge, but also that procedure which had taken place for seven years, the judge being so related, fell to be quashed. He therefore declined to judge in this case.

The Lord President said that as there was one good ground for sustaining Lord Kinloch's declinator, as settled by the case of Ommaney, it was unnecessary to say anything as to the other. He thought they must sustain the declinator.

The other Judges concurred.

 1866

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1866/02SLR0006.html