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 >> North British Railway Co. v. Budhill Coal and Sandstone Co. [1909] ScotLR 347 (04 February 1909) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1909/46SLR0347.html Cite as: [1909] SLR 347, [1909] ScotLR 347 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 347↓
(Single Bills.)
(Reported ante November 24, 1908, 46 S.L.R. 178.)
Defenders who had been successful both in the Outer and in the Inner Houses, and found entitled to expenses, moved for approval of the Auditor's report and for decree in name of the agents disbursers. Prior to the motion the pursuers had appealed to the House of Lords, but owing to the House being in vacation their petition of appeal had not been presented, nor had an order for service been pronounced.
The Court granted the decree craved subject to caution being found for repetition in the event of the appellants succeeding, or the House pronouncing any order disentitling them to the expenses in question.
The case is reported ante ut supra.
On 14th December 1906 the North British Rail way Company brought an action against the Budhill Coal and Sandstone Company concluding, inter alia, for declarator that the defenders had no right to remove the sandstone from certain lands belonging to the pursuers. On 22nd June 1907 the Lord Ordinary ( Dundas) dismissed the action and found the defenders entitled to expenses. The pursuers reclaimed to the Second Division, who on 24th November 1908 adhered and found the defenders entitled to additional expenses.
After the defenders' account of expenses had been remitted to the Auditor, but prior to approval of his report, the pursuers lodged a petition of appeal to the House of Lords. On 4th February 1909 the defenders moved for approval of the Auditor's report and for decree for the taxed amount of expenses in name of the agents disbursers. At that date, owing to the House of Lords being in vacation, the petition of appeal had not been presented, nor had any order for service been pronounced. The pursuers opposed the motion.
Argued for pursuers—As the case was under appeal to the House of Lords, decree for expenses should not be granted at present. In any event such decree should only be granted on caution being found for repetition in the event of the appeal being successful.
Argued for defenders—As the case was not removed from the Court of Session, until the petition of appeal was presented and an order for service pronounced in the House of Lords, execution could not be stayed, and the defenders were entitled to the decree craved. The mere lodging of the petition did not remove the case from the Court of Session— Edinburgh Northern Tramways Company v. Mann, October 16, 1891, 19 R. 24, 29 S.L.R. 51.
The Court pronounced this interlocutor—
“The Lords approve of the Auditor's report on the delenders' account of expenses: Ordain the pursuers to make payment to the defenders of the sum of nine hundred and ninety-five pounds four shillings and sixpence (£995, 4s. 6d.) sterling, the taxed amount thereof, but that only on caution being found to the
Page: 348↓
satisfaction of the Clerk of Court by the defenders for repetition in the event of the House of Lords finding them liable in repetition of the said expenses; and decern: Further, allow the decree to go out and be extracted in name of Messrs Smith & Watt, W.S., the agents disbursers thereof.”
Counsel for Pursuers (Reclaimers)— Cooper, K.C.— Macmillan. Agent— James Watson, S.S.C.
Counsel for Defenders (Respondents)— C H. Brown. Agents— Smith & Watt, W.S.
