Dougall'S Trustees v. Lornie [1900] ScotLR 37_855 (04 July 1900)
The objection to the competency of the appeal based on failure to print and box the record and proof anew is repelled, as established practice and the Acts of Sederunt permit reference to previously boxed documents in a second appeal.
- Citation
- [1900] ScotLR 37_855
- Parties
- Pursuer/respondent: George Dougall's Trustees; Defender/appellant: John Guthrie Lornie
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judgment Date
- 04 July 1900
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal From Sheriff Court / Second Appeal to Court of Session Inner House, First Division
- Outcome
- Objection repelled; appeal allowed to proceed; no expenses awarded for the competency discussion.
- Legal Topics
- Appeal Procedure, Printing and Boxing of Record, Acts of Sederunt, Sheriff Court Appeals
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
George Dougall's Trustees
Pursuer/respondent
John Guthrie Lornie
Defender/appellant
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Sheriff Court / Second Appeal to Court of Session Inner House, First Division
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether, on a second appeal from the Sheriff Court, it is necessary to print and box the record and proof anew, or if reference to previously boxed prints suffices under the Acts of Sederunt
Ratio Decidendi
The objection to the competency of the appeal based on failure to print and box the record and proof anew is repelled, as established practice and the Acts of Sederunt permit reference to previously boxed documents in a second appeal.
Court Disposition
Objection repelled; appeal allowed to proceed; no expenses awarded for the competency discussion.
Orders
- Repel the objection to the competency of the record in the second appeal.
- Appoint the cause to be put to the roll.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment