 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Macfarlane v. Beattie & Sons [1892] ScotLR 29_814 (30 June 1892) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1892/29SLR0814.html Cite as: [1892] ScotLR 29_814, [1892] SLR 29_814 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 814↓
[
The Act of Sederunt, 16th February 1841, sec. 46, provides—“That if it shall be made to appear to the Court that a party has abandoned his suit, or if the pursuer or party appointed to stand as pursuer shall not proceed to trial within twelve months after issues have been finally engrossed and signed, the Court shall proceed therein as in cases in which parties are held as confessed, unless sufficient cause be shown for the delay to the satisfaction of the Court.”
The Court of Session Act 1850, sec. 40, provides—“That where an issue or issues is or are approved as aforesaid, it shall be competent to the Lord Ordinary in the cause, on the motion of either of the parties, to appoint a time and place for the trial of such issue or issues.”
This was an action by Andrew Macfarlane, labourer, against William Beattie & Sons, contractors, Edinburgh, for damages for personal injury sustained by him while in their service. The case was tried before
Page: 815↓
Lord Kincairney and a jury, and upon 27th May 1891 the jury returned a unanimous verdict for the pursuer, with damages to the amount of £130. The defenders moved for a new trial, which was granted by interlocutor of the Second Division dated 25th June 1891. Nothing was done by either party to bring on the new trial. Upon 30th June 1892 the defenders, after intimating to the pursuers, moved the Second Division to dismiss the action, to assoilzie the defenders, and to find them entitled to expenses, in respect of the pursuer's failure to proceed to trial within a year and a day after the date of the interlocutor setting aside the verdict and granting a new trial. The motion was made under the provisions of the Act of Sederunt, 16th February 1841, sec. 40.
Case cited— Baird v. Cornelius, July 16, 1881, 8 R. 982.
The Court refused the motion.
Counsel for Pursuer and Appellant— Clyde. Agents— Drummond & Reid, W.S.
Counsel for Defenders and Respondents— Rhind. Agent— D. Howard Smith, Solicitor.