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 >> Robb v. Eglin [1877] ScotLR 14_473 (18 May 1877) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1877/14SLR0473.html Cite as: [1877] ScotLR 14_473, [1877] SLR 14_473 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 473↓
[Sheriff-Substitute of Lanarkshire.
It is competent to appeal to the Court of Session for the purpose of being reponed against a decree by default pronounced by the Sheriff-Substitute, even before the expiry of the period within which it is competent to appeal to the Sheriff-Depute.
This was an appeal from the Sheriff Court of Lanarkshire in an action by James Robb, residing in Glasgow, against William Eglin, boot and shoe factor there, to recover the sum of £250 alleged to be due by the defender to the pursuer. The case was ordered to the Debate Roll in the Sheriff-Court of 27th February 1877, and when the case was called on that day no appearance was made for either party, and the Sheriff-Substitute, as directed by section 20 of the Sheriff Court Act of 1876, dismissed the action, finding no expenses due to either party.
The pursuer did not appeal to the Sheriff, but on the 10th March, while an appeal to the Sheriff was still competent under sec. 33 of the above Act, he appealed to the Court of Session.
It was stated in the Single Bills that at the time that the debate should have taken place in the Sheriff Court the process had been borrowed up to be transmitted to Edinburgh and produced in a Court of Session action pending between the same parties, which was set down for trial on the 8th of March.
The pursuer argued that the appeal was competent, and cited Morrison v. Walker, June 24, 1871, 9 Macph. 902.
The Court, in respect of the authority above cited, held that the appeal was competent, and reponed the appellant on payment of £3, 3s. of expenses to the respondent. They further remitted the cause back to the Sheriff-Substitute to be proceeded with.
Counsel for Appellant— Wallace. Agents— J. & A. Hastie, S.S.C.
Counsel for Respondent— Rhind. Agent— R. P. Stevenson, S.S.C.
