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 >> Hendry … Co. v. The Little Orme's Head Limestone Co. [1897] ScotLR 35_124 (25 November 1897) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1897/35SLR0124.html Cite as: [1897] ScotLR 35_124, [1897] SLR 35_124 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 124↓
[Sheriff Court of Lanarkshire.
An appeal was abandoned after it had been sent to the short roll, but before it had been put out for hearing.
Observations as to the rule to be applied in allowing the respondent the expenses incurred by him in preparation for the discussion.
In October 1896 an action was raised in the Sheriff Court of Lanarkshire by the Little Orme's Head Limestone Company, Limited, against Messrs Hendry … Company, coal and limestone merchants, Great Clyde Street, Glasgow, concluding for payment of £388; and in November a supplementary action was raised against the individual members of the firm. On 8th June 1897 the Sheriff, adhering with a variation to an interlocutor of the Sheriff-Substitute, found the defenders liable to make payment of the sum of £338. The defenders on 20th July 1897 boxed an appeal against this interlocutor to the First Division. On 15th October the appeal was sent to the short roll. On 25th November, before it had been put out for hearing, the appellants put in a note stating that they did not insist in the appeal, and craving the Court to dismiss it. The respondents had in the meantime printed an appendix containing correspondence.
Counsel for the appellants moved that the expenses to be allowed to the respondents should be modified at the sum of £3, 3s. They argued that the rule to follow was that in Gentles v. Beattie, October 15, 1880, 8 R. 13, where expenses were modified. The respondents had been premature in printing the documents, since the appeal could not be out for hearing for two or three months.
Argued for respondents—They were entitled to full expenses according to the ordinary rule— Smith Sligo v. Knox, Nov. 2, 1880, 8 R. 41. In Gentles v. Beattie the appeal had been withdrawn when first appearing in the Single Bills, while here it had been sent to the roll.
Accordingly, though in this not very complicated case time has certainly been taken by the forelock, I think we should allow expenses.
The Court dismissed the appeal with full expenses.
Counsel for the Appellants— Sym. Agent— W. J. Lewis, S.S.C.
Counsel for the Respondents— Ramsay. Agents— J. … J. Ross, W.S.
