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 >> Bain v. Matthews [1866] ScotLR 2_86_1 (15 June 1866) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1866/02SLR0086_1.html Cite as: [1866] ScotLR 2_86_1, [1866] SLR 2_86_1 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 86↓
The pursuer alleged that under a verbal agreement the defender had agreed to take from him at a valuation the furniture of a mill of which he was tenant, and brought an action for the value thereof— Held that the agreement was not proved.
This was an advocation from the Sheriff Court of Aberdeenshire, and involved a simple question of fact. The pursuer (advocator) sued the defender for £108, 16s. 6d. sterling, being the value of mill machinery, and gearing, mill and barn furniture, household furniture, implements, pailing, and other effects belonging to the pursuer, in and about the Mill of Sclattie, and cottage and office-houses attached thereto, and alleged to have been sold by the pursuer to the defender, on or about the 31st of May 1864, according to the valuation of parties mutually chosen. The pursuer was tenant of the Mill of Sclattie, under a sub-lease till Martinmas 1864. Previous to that, and at the preceding term of Whitsunday, the defender had obtained from the landlord a lease of the Mill of Sclattie for 19 years, commencing as at Martinmas 1864. The pursuer was willing that the defender should get possession of the mill at Whitsunday; and he says that he met the defender on the subject, and agreed with him that he should take the machinery, gearing, &c., of the mill, at a valuation to be put upon them by valuators mutually chosen. The pursuer alleges that this was done, and the subjects handed over to the defender. He accordingly sues the defender for the price of the valued subjects. The agreement set forth by the pursuer was denied by the defender, who said that the contract was that the defender should pay £15 for the use of the mill-gearing, &c., for six months, being the period of the pursuer's yet unexpired lease. A proof was led.
The Sheriff-Substitute (Watson) found the pursuer's case proved, and decerned.
The Sheriff (Davidson) altered. The pursuer advocated.
Gordon and Mair supported the advocation.
A. R. Clark and Keir argued that the Sheriff's judgment was well founded.
The Court adhered to the judgment of the Sheriff.
Solicitors: Agent for Pursuer— James Finlay, S. S.C.
Agents for Defender— Webster & Sprott, S.S.C.
