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 >> Trainer v Brown [1838] CS 16_1140 (16 June 1838)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1838/016SS1140.html
Cite as: [1838] CS 16_1140

[New search] [Help]


SCOTTISH_Court_of_Session_Shaw

Page: 1140

016SS1140

Trainer

v.

Brown

No. 216

Court of Session

1st Division

June 16 1838

Lord President, Lord Gillies, Lord Mackenzie, Lord Corehouse.

Henry Trainer,     Pursuer.— Counsel:
Inglis—.
James Brown,     Defender.— Counsel:
Marshall.

Subject_Cessio—Process.— Headnote:

In a Sheriff-Court process of cessio, under 6 and 7 Will. IV., c. 56, held incompetent for the Sheriff, before expiry of the induciæ of 30 days, to grant a petition for liberation and interim protection, under the statute.


Facts:

Henry Trainer, iron-moulder in Glasgow, being imprisoned for debt, raised a process of cessio before the Sheriff of Lanarkshire, under 6 and 7 Will. IV., c. 56. Before the expiry of the induciæ of 30 days, he presented a petition for liberation and interim protection, and on April 26, 1838, the Sheriff ordained him “to find sufficient caution acted in the books of Court, that he will appear at all diets of Court whenever required, and that under the penalty of ten pounds sterling.” On the same day the Sheriff afterwards, in respect “that caution has now been found in terms of the above interlocutor, granted warrant and authorized the keeper of the Glasgow jail to liberate the petitioner, Henry Trainer, from said jail, and ordained him to be set at liberty accordingly, in terms of the Act 6 and 7 Will. IV., cap. 56.” Against this judgment, James Brown, one of the creditors of Trainer, presented a reclaiming note to the Lords of the First Division of the Court, praying their Lordships “to recal and alter the said interlocutors of 26th April last; to refuse the pursuer, the said Henry Trainer's application for liberation and interim protection; or at least to find it incompetent for the Sheriff to entertain the same, until expiry of the induciæ of thirty days previous to the said Henry Trainer's public examination, and to remit to the Sheriff to recal the said interlocutors accordingly.”

Before the reclaiming note came to be advised, the induciæ of 30 days had expired, but the reclaimer stated that he still wished to insist for the judgment of the Court as to the competency of the interlocutor of the Sheriff; that he had an interest to do so, both as to the question of right which was involved, and as to the question of expenses; and that it was important to the law to have the question settled.

The Court accordingly heard parties, and gave judgment on the note.

Lord President.—I think the interlocutor of the Sheriff was incompetently pronounced. Until after the expiry of the induciæ of thirty days, the creditors of the pursuer were not bound to be in Court; and this proceeding, which might materially affect their interests, ought not to take place before that time. It is essential to justice that it should not be permitted so to take place. We have already indicated opinions, in analogous questions under this statute, which are to the same effect. The Sheriff's judgment ought, therefore, to be altered.

Lord Gillies.—This is a case arising in the Sheriff-Court, and I rather think the former cases, to which your Lordship refers, were actions raised in the Court of Session. But I think the same rule must apply. I do not see how it is possible for the Sheriff to say what is the reasonable caution to be required in a case where he has no statement before him as to the amount of debts, &c., excepting on one side, as the induciæ have not run which are allowed to contradictors to make their appearance. The pursuer may state his debts as amounting only to £100, when their actual amount may be £10,000; and the Sheriff has no means of checking the statement, if he proceeds to give a judgment before any contradictor can be in Court.

Lord Mackenzie.—I am of the same opinion. The words of the statute regulating the procedure as to this matter, before the Sheriff, are as like as possible to the words regulating it in actions raised here. I think the interlocutor should be altered, and a judgment pronounced settling the law on this matter in the Sheriff-Court as well as here.

Lord Corehouse.—I concur in the opinions which have been expressed.

The Court then altered the interlocutor reclaimed against; found it incompetent for the Sheriff to entertain Trainer's petition until the induciæ of thirty days had run; but reserving power to Trainer to renew his petition quam primum.

Solicitors: A. Scott, W.S.—Agents.

SS 16 SS 1140 1838


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1838/016SS1140.html