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 >> Adlington v. The Inveraray Ferry and Coach Co. (Ltd) [1874] ScotLR 11_523 (22 May 1874) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1874/11SLR0523.html Cite as: [1874] ScotLR 11_523, [1874] SLR 11_523 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 523↓
(Ante, p. 479)
In a case where a husband and wife brought an action for bodily injuries sustained by them under separate issues, and the wife recovered £25, and the husband one farthing— held that the husband was entitled to expenses, he not
Page: 524↓
being in the position of a pursuer who had recovered less than £5 in terms of section 40 of the Court of Session Act 1868.
This was an action of damages at the instance of a husband and wife for bodily injuries sustained by both in a coach accident, the husband suing for his own interest and as administrator-in-law for his wife. The case went to trial before the Lord President and a Jury at the latesittings ( ante, p. 479) on two issues, the first relating to the injuries sustained by the wife and laying the damages it £450, and the second relating to the injuries of the husband and laying the damages at £50. The jury returned a verdict for the pursuers on the first issue, assessing the damage at £25, and for the husband on the second issue, damage one farthing.
The pursuers now moved the Court to apply the verdict and find them entitled to expenses.
The defenders resisted this as regards the expenses applicable to the second issue, and asked for the expenses themselves, on the ground that the verdict on the second issue was practically in their favour.
Asher, for them, quoted the 40th section of the Court of Session Act 1868, which provides “Where the pursuer in any action of damages in the Court of Session recovers by the verdict of a jury less than £5, he shall not be entitled to recover or obtain from the defender any expenses in respect of such verdict,” except in certain specified cases, of which the present was not one. He maintained that this section excluded the husband's right to recover any expenses in respect of the issue relating to himself.
Darling, for the pursuers, replied that the section quoted did not apply to the husband here, who was the substantial pursuer in both issues, and he contended that as the true question between the parties had been fault or no fault, and as no additional expense had been caused by the second issue, the pursuers were entitled to their full expenses.
The Court gave decree in terms of the verdict, and found the pursuers entitled to expenses, holding that the husband was not in the position of a pursuer who had recovered less than £5, and that no additional expense had been caused by the second issue.
Solicitors: Pursuers' Agents— Bruce & Kerr, W.S.
Defenders' Agents— D. Crawford & J. Y. Guthrie, S.S.C.
