BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Scottish Court of Session Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Robertson v. Robertson's Executors [1899] ScotLR 37_58 (8 November 1899)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1899/37SLR0058.html
Cite as: [1899] ScotLR 37_58, [1899] SLR 37_58

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


SCOTTISH_SLR_Court_of_Session

Page: 58

Court of Session Inner House First Division.

Wednesday, November 8. 1899.

[ Lord Kyllachy, Ordinary.

37 SLR 58

Robertson

v.

Robertson's Executors.

Subject_1Process
Subject_2Expenses
Subject_3Withdrawal of Reclaiming-Note.
Facts:

A reclaiming-note in a case involving the printing of a large number of documents was boxed on April 6th. Notice of its withdrawal was given to the respondent in November, before the case had appeared on the roll for discussion, and before counsel had been instructed. Held that the respondent was not entitled to an award of expenses exceeding £2, 2s.

Headnote:

The Rev. J. J. Robertson, minister of the Presbyterian Church, Adelaide, South Australia, brought an action against the executors of the late Mrs Isabella Milne or Robertson. On 16th December 1898 the Lord Ordinary ( Kyllachy) dismissed the action, and on 10th March 1899 found the pursuer liable in expenses as taxed. On April 6th 1899 the pursuer reclaimed. On November 8th 1889, before the case appeared on the roll for discussion, he presented a note of withdrawal of the reclaiming-note, and prayed the Court to find the respondents entitled to two guineas of modified expenses. The respondents moved that the expenses be increased to £4, 4s., in respect of the long interval which had elapsed since the date of reclaiming, and the expense incurred by them in considering whether it was necessary for them to print any of the documents in the proof, which were very numerous— Little Orme's Head Limestone Company, Limited v. Hendry & Co., November 25, 1897, 25 R. 124. They admitted that they had received intimation of the withdrawal before they had instructed counsel or actually printed anything.

The reclaimer argued that it was his duty and not that of the respondents to print the documents, and that there was therefore nothing to take the case out of the general rule of awarding £2, 2s.— Davidson v. Allen, March 14, 1878, 5 R. 763.

Judgment:

Lord Adam— The motion is that the ordinary sum of £2, 2s. of expenses, which is awarded when a reclaiming-note is withdrawn after being sent to the roll, but before being put out for hearing, should be increased to £4, 4s., and the sum at stake is therefore not very large. I am of opinion, however, that no cause has been shown for increasing the usual award. It is the duty of a reclaimer to print the necessary documents, and I do not see why the respondent should not wait until the reclaimer's print is issued and see what he wants to print in addition. I think therefore that in the circumstances I am not prepared to grant more than the usual amount of expenses.

Lord M‘LarenPrima facie it is the duty of the reclaimer or appellant to print all the documents which were before the Court whose decision is under review. The documents put in evidence are just as much a part of the proof as the parole proof itself, and it is the duty of the reclaimer to print them. No doubt, if he fails to do so, the respondent is entitled for his own benefit to put in a supplementary print, but he is not entitled to assume that the reclaimer will fail in his duty. I do not think there is any reason here for departing from the usual practice.

Lord Kinnear concurred.

The Lord President was absent.

The Court awarded £2, 2s. of modified expenses.

Counsel:

Counsel for the Pursuer— Cullen. Agent— F. J. Martin, W.S.

Counsel for the Defender— Grainger Stewart. Agents— Boyd, Jameson, & Kelly, W.S.

1899


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1899/37SLR0058.html