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 >> Watson v. Callendar Coal Co. [1888] ScotLR 26_61 (17 November 1888) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1888/26SLR0061.html Cite as: [1888] SLR 26_61, [1888] ScotLR 26_61 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 61↓
A pursuer in a Sheriff Court action for damages for personal injury appealed to the Court of Session against a judgment of a Sheriff, affirming the judgment of his Substitute, and assoilzieing the defenders. The pursuer applied for the benefit of the poor's roll, and the reporters on the probabilis causa were equally divided in opinion. The Court (following the case of Carr, &c. v. North British Railway Company, November 1, 1885, 13 R. 113) refused the application.
Samuel Watson, surfaceman, Kerse Lane, Falkirk, raised an action in the Sheriff Court at Falkirk against the Callendar Coal Company, Falkirk, concluding for a sum in name of damages for personal injury alleged to have been sustained by him from the fault of the defenders.
The Sheriff-Substitute ( Scott Moncrieff), after proof, assoilzied the defenders, and his judgment was affirmed by the Sheriff ( Muirhead).
The pursuer appealed, and applied for admission to the poor's roll. A remit was made to the reporters in the probabilis causa, who reported that they were equally divided in opinion. It was stated that of the reporters there were one counsel and one agent on each side.
The pursuer moved the Court to admit. He admitted that the circumstances of the case were identical with those of Carr, &c.v. North British Railway Company, November 1, 1885, 13 R. 113, in which the First Division refused to admit, but argued that the case of Marshall v. North British Railway Company, July 13, 1881, 8 R. 939, was in his favour and that it was in the discretion of the Court to grant the application.
The defenders argued that the question was no longer open, and that the Court were bound to follow the unanimous judgment of the First Division in the case of Carr v. North British Railway Company, supra.
The Court refused the application.
Counsel for Applicant— Macnair. Agent— J. D. Turnbull, S.S.C.
Counsel for the Respondent— Dickson. Agents Peddie & Ivory, W.S.
