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!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Scottish Court of Session Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Gore v. Westfield Autocar Co., Ltd [1921] ScotLR 488 (15 June 1921)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1921/58SLR0488.html
Cite as: [1921] ScotLR 488, [1921] SLR 488

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

SCOTTISH_SLR_Court_of_Session

Page: 488↓

Court of Session Inner House First Division.

Wednesday, June 15. 1921.

[ Lord Anderson, Ordinary.

58 SLR 488

Gore

v.

Westfield Autocar Company, Limited.

Subject_1Process
Subject_2Reclaiming Note
Subject_3Signature of Counsel.
Facts:

Objection having been taken to the competency of a reclaiming note on the ground that it was signed by the party reclaiming and not by counsel, the Court in view of the fact that the reclaimer was pleading his own case, and “as a special indulgence in the particular circumstances,” allowed the note to be received.

Headnote:

Alexander Gore, Leith, raised an action for breach of contract against the Westfield Autocar Company, Limited, Edinburgh.

After proof the Lord Ordinary ( Anderson) assoilzied the defenders.

The pursuer presented a reclaiming note signed by himself and not by counsel.

On 14th June 1921 the pursuer appeared in person and moved the Court to send the reclaiming note to the roll. Counsel for the defenders objected to the competency of the reclaiming note on the ground that it was not signed by counsel, and cited the following cases:— Brown v. Whyte, 1900, 2 F. 1039, 37 S.L.R. 784; Hawks v. Donaldson, 1889, 2 F. 95, 37 S.L.R. 70.

The 14th June being the last of the reclaiming days the Court dropped the note in order that the pursuer might in the course of the day have an opportunity of getting it signed by counsel.

In the Single Bills of 15th June the pursuer argued in person that he had a right to sign the reclaiming note himself. No authorities were cited.

 Judgment:

The opinion of the Court (consisting of the Lord President, Lord Skerrington, and Lord Cullen) was delivered by the Lord President.

Lord President—I cannot say that the reclaimer has satisfied me that there is any good reason why his reclaiming note is not signed by counsel. There is no statute and no Act of Sederunt which regulates the matter, but the practice of the Court has invariably been that reclaiming notes should be signed by counsel. There are only one or two instances in the books— Brown v. Whyte, 1900, 2 F. 1039; Davies v. Davies, 1901, 4 F. 3—in which by indulgence a party litigant has been allowed to sign his own note. Now the present reclaimer is pleading his own case, and it may be that difficulties connected with his ignorance of the procedure of this Court are the cause of the note appearing before us in its present form. As a special indulgence in the particular circumstances we shall therefore allow the note to be received, but it must be clearly understood that this indulgence will form no precedent for other cases.

The Court sent the case to the roll.

 Counsel:

Counsel for Pursuer and Reclaimer—Party. Agent—Party.

Counsel for Defenders and Respondents— Garrett. Agents— T. & W. Liddle Maclagan & Cameron, W.S.

 1921

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1921/58SLR0488.html