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 >> Scott & Co. v. Wood [1881] ScotLR 18_525 (27 May 1881) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1881/18SLR0525.html Cite as: [1881] SLR 18_525, [1881] ScotLR 18_525 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 525↓
[Sheriff of Haddington.
Held that an appeal under section 170 of the Bankruptcy Act 1856, in which the Lord Ordinary on the Bills in vacation had made a remit to the Accountant in Bankruptcy, must be prosecuted before the Inner House as soon as session commences.
This was a note for the appellants in the appeal at their instance in the sequestration of John Patterson, farmer, Clerkington, Haddington. Andrew Wood, writer, Haddington,, obtained his discharge as trustee in the sequestration from the Sheriff-Substitute of Haddington ( Shirreff) on 3d February 1881. Scott & Company, creditors, and G. S. Ferrier, the new trustee, appealed to the Court of Session under section 170 of the Bankrupt Statute 1856. When the appeal came to be considered the Court was in vacation, and the Lord Ordinary on the Bills ( Fraser) pronounced the order remitting to the Accountant in Bankruptcy to report. The Accountant reported in session. The Lord Ordinary on the Bills (who happened to be the same Judge who had in vacation remitted to the Accountant in Bankruptcy), on being moved to consider the report, stated that there was now a difficulty in his dealing with the appeal, as the Court was now sitting, and there was no provision made in the Bankrupt Statute for him disposing of the case. In these circumstances the appellants presented this note, and craved the Court to empower the Lord Ordinary to dispose of the case, or themselves to dispose of the appeal. After hearing counsel—who cited Grant v. Wilson, 1st Dec. 1859, 22 D. 51; Westland v. Ross, 18th Nov. 1840, 3 D. 83—the Lords of the First Division held that the appeal was properly before them, the functions of the Lord Ordinary on the Bills ceasing whenever vacation ends. The case was held to be analogous to that of the Lord Ordinary on the Bills acting in vacation for the Junior Lord Ordinary in petitions under the Distribution of Business Act, which are continued and disposed of by the latter whenever session commences.
Counsel for Appellants— M'Kechnie. Agents— T. & W. A. M'Laren, W.S.
Counsel for Respondent— Dickson. Agent— W. B. Glen, S.S.C.