Donaldson v. Bowie [1921] ScotLR 26 (18 October 1921)

Donaldson v. Bowie [1921] ScotLR 26 (18 October 1921)

The appeal is incompetent because the principal sum sued for does not exceed £50 exclusive of interest and expenses, and a counter-claim of any amount does not make the cause appealable under the statutory definition.

Citation
[1921] ScotLR 26
Parties
Pursuer: Thomas Cunningham Bowie and another; Defender: David Donaldson and another
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
18 October 1921
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session, Inner House, Second Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed as incompetent
Legal Topics
Appeal Competency, Summary Cause, Sheriff Courts (scotland) Act 1907, Sheriff Courts (scotland) Act 1913, Interest Exclusion, Counter Claim Value
Civil Procedure Appeal Competency Summary Cause Sheriff Courts (scotland) Act 1907 Sheriff Courts (scotland) Act 1913 Interest Exclusion Counter Claim Value

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Cunningham Bowie and another

Pursuer

David Donaldson and another

Defender

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session, Inner House, Second Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal to the Court of Session is competent where the principal sum sued for does not exceed £50 exclusive of interest and expenses under the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1907 and 1913.
  2. 2 Whether a counter-claim exceeding £50 or the inclusion of interest can render the cause appealable.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is incompetent because the principal sum sued for does not exceed £50 exclusive of interest and expenses, and a counter-claim of any amount does not make the cause appealable under the statutory definition.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed as incompetent

Orders

  • Objection to competency sustained
  • Appeal dismissed