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 >> Forth Bridge Railway Co. v. Dunfermline Guildry [1910] ScotLR 286 (27 January 1910) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1910/47SLR0286.html Cite as: [1910] ScotLR 286, [1910] SLR 286 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 286↓
(Single Bills.)
(Reported ante, February 2, 1909, 46 S.L.R. 399.)
The Court of consent and in terms of a joint-minute recalled an interlocutor dismissing an action as irrelevant, and found for the pursuers with expenses against the defenders, an intervening judgment of the House of Lords in a cognate case having meanwhile been pronounced.
The case is reported ante ut supra.
On 2nd February 1909 the First Division, following the decision of the Second Division in The North British Railway Company v. Budhill Coal and Sandstone Company, 1909 S.C. 277, 46 S.L.R. 178, held that whinstone was a mineral in the sense of section 70 of the Railways Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845 (8 and 9 Vict. cap. 33), and affirmed the interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary (Dundas) dismissing the action.
On 15th November 1909 the House of Lords reversed the judgment of the Second Division in the North British Railway Company v. Budhill Coal and Sandstone Company, and held that sandstone is not a mineral in the sense of the above-mentioned section.
The parties to the present action presented a joint-minute to the First Division, craving the Court to pronounce an interlocutor recalling the interlocutor of 2nd February 1909 and the interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary dated 4th June 1908, and declaring in terms of the first conclusion of the summons for the pursuers (reclaimers), with expenses against the defenders (respondents).
The Court pronounced an interlocutor in the terms craved.
Counsel for Pursuers— Clyde, K.C.— Cooper, K.C.— Hon. W. Watson. Agents — Robson & M'Lean, W.S.
Counsel for Defenders— Dean of Faculty (Dickson, K.C.)— Constable, K.C.— Macmillan. Agent— John Stewart, S.S.C.
