Connal & co. Ltd v. Reid and others. Clyde navigation trustees v. Reid and others [1905] ScotLR 43_187 (15 December 1905)

Connal & co. Ltd v. Reid and others. Clyde navigation trustees v. Reid and others [1905] ScotLR 43_187 (15 December 1905)

The action of multiplepoinding is competent where there are two competing claims to funds or goods in the hands of a third party, following established practice and the authority of Commercial Bank of Scotland v. Muir. The agreement between the parties did not bar the action, as it did not amount to a contractual admission of exclusive possession by Hagart & Company.

Citation
[1905] ScotLR 43_187
Parties
Pursuer and Nominal Raiser: Connal & Company, Limited; Pursuer and Nominal Raiser: National Bank of Scotland Limited; Defender, Real Raiser and Respondent: Robert Reid, C.A., Glasgow, trustee on the sequestrated estates of M'Dowall & Neilson; Defender and Reclaimers: Hagart & Company, timber measurers, Glasgow; Pursuer and Nominal Raiser (in Second Action): Clyde Navigation Trustees
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
15 December 1905
Procedural Posture
Multiplepoinding / Reclaiming Note (appeal) Against Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor
Outcome
Reclaiming note refused; Lord Ordinary's interlocutor adhered to; case remitted for further procedure; question of expenses reserved.
Legal Topics
Multiplepoinding, Competency of Action, Double Distress, Stakeholder Liability, Expenses in Multiplepoinding
Civil Procedure Bankruptcy Commercial Law Multiplepoinding Competency of Action Double Distress Stakeholder Liability Expenses in Multiplepoinding

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Connal & Company, Limited

Pursuer and Nominal Raiser

National Bank of Scotland Limited

Pursuer and Nominal Raiser

Robert Reid, C.A., Glasgow, trustee on the sequestrated estates of M'Dowall & Neilson

Defender, Real Raiser and Respondent

Hagart & Company, timber measurers, Glasgow

Defender and Reclaimers

Clyde Navigation Trustees

Pursuer and Nominal Raiser (in Second Action)

Procedural Posture

Multiplepoinding / Reclaiming Note (appeal) Against Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an action of multiplepoinding is competent where there are two competing claims to funds or goods held by a third party
  2. 2 Whether the agreement between the parties bars the multiplepoinding action
  3. 3 Whether the real raiser is entitled to expenses from the fund in medio

Ratio Decidendi

The action of multiplepoinding is competent where there are two competing claims to funds or goods in the hands of a third party, following established practice and the authority of Commercial Bank of Scotland v. Muir. The agreement between the parties did not bar the action, as it did not amount to a contractual admission of exclusive possession by Hagart & Company.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming note refused; Lord Ordinary's interlocutor adhered to; case remitted for further procedure; question of expenses reserved.

Orders

  • Refuse the reclaiming note.
  • Adhere to the interlocutor reclaimed against.