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 >> Turner v. Selkirk'S Trustee [1905] ScotLR 43_208 (23 November 1905) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1905/43SLR0208.html Cite as: [1905] SLR 43_208, [1905] ScotLR 43_208 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 208↓
[
The pursuer in an action for payment having obtained decree in the Outer House, the defender lodged a reclaiming note. Subsequently the pursuer assigned his right under the decree, and his assignee was sisted as pursuer along with the original pursuer.
The defender, desiring to withdraw his reclaiming note, moved the Court to refuse the reclaiming note. The original pursuer thereupon moved the Court to recal the interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary, and of new grant decree in similar terms in favour of his assignee.
The Court refused the reclaiming note. In an action at the instance of James William Turner, writer, Greenock, against Thomas Landells Selkirk, chartered accountant, Glasgow, sole accepting trustee acting under the trust-disposition and settlement of the deceased James Landells Selkirk, concluding for payment of a sum of money, the Lord Ordinary ( Ardwall), on 2nd March 1905, decerned against the defender in terms of the conclusions of the summons, and found the pursuer entitled to expenses.
On the same date the defender lodged a reclaiming note against this interlocutor.
Subsequently the pursuer assigned his right under the decree to one Farmer, and on 25th October 1905 Farmer was sisted as pursuer in the action along with the original pursuer.
On 23rd November, in the Single Bills, counsel for the defender stated that the defender desired to withdraw his reclaiming note, and moved the Court to refuse the reclaiming note and adhere to the interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary.
Counsel for the pursuer Turner moved the Court to recal the interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary, and of new grant decree in terms of the conclusions of the summons in favour of the pursuer Farmer.
The Court pronounced this interlocutor—
“The Lords, on the motion of counsel for the defender and reclaimer, refuse the reclaiming note for him, and decern: Find the pursuers entitled to additional expenses since the date of the interlocutor reclaimed against, and remit,” &c.
Counsel for the Pursuer Turner— D. Anderson. Agent— A. C. D. Vert, S.S.C.
Counsel for the Pursuer Farmer— J. A Christie. Agent— A. C. D. Vert, S.S.C.
Counsel for the Defender— Findlay. Agents— Gill & Pringle, S.S.C.
