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 >> Jardine v. M'culloch [1865] ScotLR 1_50_9 (2 December 1865) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1865/01SLR0050_9.html Cite as: [1865] ScotLR 1_50_9, [1865] SLR 1_50_9 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 50↓
This case turned upon the question whether a proprietor was divested by a disposition ex facie absolute, but “alleged” (it is remarked in the special case prepared by the Sheriff) “to be qualified by a back-letter, in which it was stated that the disposition was a security only.” The back-letter was unstamped. The Court holding that they were entitled to look only to the facts of the case as disclosed to them in the Sheriff's case, and that as there it was not so much as stated that a back-letter existed, though if it did it was null from want of a stamp, decided, affirming the judgment of the Sheriff, that the proprietor was so divested, and sustained the objection to his name being retained on the register.
EXPENSES.
The question of expenses in reference to the Dumbartonshire appeals was then gone into. Mr Monro
Page: 51↓
contended that, following the rule observed for the last two years, each case should be treated as standing by itself, and that no attempt should be made to strike a balance in favour of either party. His clients (the Conservative interest) had supported 12 appeals, and had been successful in 7; and in opposing appeals on the other side, amounting to 14 in all, they had been successful in 10. His clients had therefore, out of 26 appeals, been successful in 17.
Mr Lancaster, in the Liberal interest, remarked that as in some instances several appeals had been disposed of in one argument, expenses should in such cases be given to the successful party as for one case only.
The Court held that though they must in point of form decide each case separately, yet considering that the same counsel and agents had been employed throughout, and that thus much discussion and time had been saved, they would modify expenses to £2, 2s. in each case.
