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 >> Guthrie. v. Anderson [1866] ScotLR 1_147 (7 February 1866) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1866/01SLR0147.html Cite as: [1866] ScotLR 1_147, [1866] SLR 1_147 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 147↓
A party found liable for a tradesman's account, although he was not directly the employer, on the ground that he had reaped the benefit of the work.
James Guthrie, wright and joiner in Stirling, sued Samuel Anderson, coppersmith, Leith, in the Sheriff Court of Edinburgh, for payment of £74, 9s. 3
d. for “wright or joiner work done, and furnishings made, betwixt 19th May 1862 and 6th February 1863, on certain old houses in Stirling, on the employment of the defender's mother, who was then in the management of the property, and latterly on the employment of the defender himself, after he had examined the work done on the employment of his mother, of which whole work and furnishings the defender is now reaping the advantage, and which the defender promised to pay.” 1 2 The defender had no written title to the property until 22d January 1863, and he was willing to pay the pursuer's account so far as incurred after that date. But it appeared that the property had been left to him by his uncle who died in 1857, by will, which was afterwards declared to be invalid for the conveyance of heritage; and that on 22d January 1863 his mother, who had previously conveyed the fee of the subjects to another, reserving her liferent, conveyed the liferent to the defender by a deed which gave him right to the rents from and after Whitsunday 1862.
The Sheriff-Substitute (Arkley) decided in favour of the defender. He found that the claim could only be established by proof of the defender's promise to pay it, and that the promise could only be proved by his writ or oath. The Sheriff (Gordon) adhered.
The pursuer advocated, and pleaded that the defender's mother in employing him acted as trustee for the defender, and that the defender having rereived the rents, and so reaped the benefit of his labour, he was liable on the principle of recompense.
The Court advocated the cause, and recalled the Sheriff's judgment, holding that as the defender had a right to the rents from Whitsunday 1862, he was bound to pay the account sued for if it was really due, and a remit was made to a man of skill to report upon a defence stated that the work had not been done in a tradesmanlike manner.
Counsel for Pursuer— Mr Shand and Mr J. G. Smith. Agent— Mr William Saunders, S. S. C.
Counsel for Defender— Mr D. B. Hope. Agent— Mr Robert Hill, W.S.
