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 >> Meek's Trustee v. Russel's trustees [1869] ScotLR 6_640 (8 July 1869) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1869/06SLR0640.html Cite as: [1869] SLR 6_640, [1869] ScotLR 6_640 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 640↓
Where, in an action of damages for breach of contract, the evidence led in the Sheriff-court was unsatisfactory, the Court, under the Judicature Act, section 40, cancelled the evidence and ordered issues with a view to jury trial.
Russel's trustees brought an action in the Sheriff-court of Linlithgowshire against James Meek, concluding for £5000 of damages for breach of a contract, under which they alleged Meek had agreed to purchase from them the whole of their stock of a certain mineral which they might put out of two specified pits, on certain conditions. After a proof the Sheriff-substitute ( Home) decerned against the defender for £100 damages. The Sheriff ( Monro) altered as to the sum of damages, and gave decree for the whole £5000. The trustee on Meek's sequestrated estate appealed.
Fraser and Scott for appellant.
Clark and Gloag for respondents.
The Court held that it was clear there had been a breach of contract; but the question of real importance in the case was anything but clear, there being no proper or satisfactory evidence on either side as to the amount of damages. In these circumstances the only course was to cancel the proof, and order an issue with the view of having the damages awarded by a jury in common form, Lord DEAS observing, that the best illustration of the difficulty of assessing the damages was that the Sheriff-substitute had given £100 and the Sheriff £5000.
Agent for Appellant— T. Maclaren, S.S.C.
Agents for Respondent— Wilson, Burn, & Gloag, W.S.
