 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Steedman v. Steedman [1887] ScotLR 24_476 (19 March 1887) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1887/24SLR0476.html Cite as: [1887] ScotLR 24_476, [1887] SLR 24_476 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 476↓
[
The 16th section of the Act 48 Geo. III. cap. 151, provides that “If the reclaiming or representing days against an interlocutor of a Lord Ordinary shall from mistake or inadvertency have expired, it shall be competent, with the leave of the Lord Ordinary, to submit the said interlocutor by petition to the review of the Division to which the said Lord Ordinary belongs; but declaring always, that in the event of such petition being presented, the petitioners shall be subjected in payment of the expenses previously incurred in the process by the other party.” Where a husband had obtained decree of divorce against his wife, and she had from mistake allowed the reclaiming days to expire, she was reponed without payment of expenses, the Lord President observing, that while undoubtedly in the ordinary case a person must before being reponed pay his previous expenses, that rule did not apply to the case of husband and wife. If it did, the wife would have been entitled to demand that her husband should furnish her with the means.
Authority cited— M'Ra V. Biriwhistle's Trustees, March 11, 1831, 9 S. 582.
Counsel for Defender (Reclaimer)— Hay. Agent— James Skinner, S.S.C.
Counsel for Pursuer (Respondent)— Dickson— Forsyth. Agent— N. B. Constable, W.S.