 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Singer Manufacturing Co. v. Jessiman [1881] ScotLR 18_496 (14 May 1881) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1881/18SLR0496.html Cite as: [1881] ScotLR 18_496, [1881] SLR 18_496 |
||
[New search] [Help]
Page: 496↓
A summary petition in the Sheriff Court craved decree for delivery of a certain article, or failing delivery for payment of £6, 10s. Held that the alternative demand being for a definite sum less than £25, an appeal to the Court of Session was incompetent.
This was a petition in the Sheriff Court of Aberdeen presented by the Singer Manufacturing Company against John Jessiman, praying the Court “to ordain the defender to deliver to the pursuers a medium sewing machine, No. 2,891,385, with its accessories, and failing delivery within a short specified time, to be fixed by the Court, to grant a decree against the above-named defender, ordaining him to pay to the pursuers the sum of £6, 10s. sterling as the value of the said machine and accessories, and to find the defender liable in the expenses of process.”
The Sheriff-Substitute ( Dove Wilson) assoilzied the defender, but on appeal the Sheriff ( Guthrie Smith) recalled his Substitute's interlocutor and repelled the defences.
The defender appealed to the First Division.
The pursuers objected to the appeal on the ground that it was incompetent under the 22d sec. of 16 and 17 Vict. c. 80, which enacts that “it shall not be competent, except as hereinafter specially provided for, to remove from a Sheriff Court … . any cause not exceeding the value of twenty-five pounds sterling.” …
The following authorities were referred to— Shotts Iron Co. v. Kerr, Dec. 6, 1871, 10 Macph. 195; Aberdeen v. Wilson, July 16, 1872, 10 Macph, 971; Henry v. Morison, March 19, 1881, 18 Scot. Law Rep. 438.
At advising—
The case of Aberdeen v. Wilson is of course the great authority on the question, and if Mr Shaw had been able to show that it applied, we should have been prepared to follow it.
In this case the prayer of the petition is for delivery of a sewing machine, or failing delivery for payment of £6, 10s. as the value of the sewing machine and its accessories.
In the case of Aberdeen v. Wilson the conclusion was for delivery of an article, or failing delivery for payment of a sum of money or “such other sum as shall be ascertained to be the true value.” It was on these words that the judgment of the majority of the Court was rested. The opinion of Lord Mure seems to me a very valuable one, dealing as it does with the authorities which have determined the rule of practice, and he clearly holds that appeal is incompetent unless under the conclusions of the application the Sheriff could pronounce decree for more than £25. Now this case goes somewhat further, and I think when the true price or value is defined we must take that definition as conclusive.
The party concluded against is quit of the action and all its consequences by paying this £6, 10s. And it is like a small-debt action in that it fixes nothing beyond. It might be said to imply a good many other things, but that has nothing to do with it.
The Lords dismissed the appeal as incompetent.
Counsel for Pursuer (Respondent)— Trayner— Dickson. Agents— J. W. & J. Mackenzie, W.S.
Counsel for Defender (Appellant)— Shaw. Agent— R. C. Gray, S.S.C.