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 >> Simpson v. Allan [1894] ScotLR 31_572 (15 March 1894)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1894/31SLR0572.html
Cite as: [1894] ScotLR 31_572, [1894] SLR 31_572

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


SCOTTISH_SLR_Court_of_Session

Page: 572

Court of Session Inner House First Division.

Thursday, March 15. 1894.

31 SLR 572

Simpson

v.

Allan.

Subject_1Process
Subject_2Caution for Expenses
Subject_3Pursuer in Receipt of Parochial Relief
Subject_4Delay in Application.
Facts:

Application to have a pursuer who was in receipt of parochial relief, ordained to find caution, refused as made too late. Simpson brought an action of damages against Allan, a medical man, on the ground that he had been negligent in treating an injury from which the pursuer was suffering. The case was put down for jury trial at the Spring Sittings. On 15th March the defender moved the Court to ordain the pursuer to find caution within four days. He stated that the pursuer was in receipt of parochial relief, and could have sued in forma pauperisHunter v. Clark, July 10, 1874, 1 R. 1154. The pursuer submitted that no relevant ground had been alleged in support of the application. Pauperism was not a sufficient reason for requiring caution— Macdonald v. Simpsons, March 7, 1882, 9 R. 696. Further, the defender had long been aware that the pursuer was in receipt of parochial relief, for he stated in his answers that he had heard in January 1892 that the pursuer had applied for relief. The application that he should be ordained to find caution was now made for the first time on the eve of trial, and should be refused as too late.

Judgment:

Lord President—The application should have been made earlier. It is now within a few days of the trial, and, as the pursuer's counsel points out, the defender's information is of long standing.

Lords Adam and Kinnear concurred.

The Court refused the application.

Counsel:

Counsel for the Pursuer— T. B. Morison. Agents— Matthewson & Easson, S.S.C.

Counsel for the Defender— J. W. Forbes. Agent— Thomas Sturrock, S.S.C.

1894


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1894/31SLR0572.html