Jack and Another v. Waddell's Trustees [1917] ScotLR 75 (15 November 1917)

Jack and Another v. Waddell's Trustees [1917] ScotLR 75 (15 November 1917)

Interdict in the Sheriff Court is competent at the instance of third parties claiming ownership of poinded goods, even after warrant for sale has been granted, as the process is ministerial and the parties were not involved or notified in the diligence.

Citation
[1917] ScotLR 75
Parties
Pursuer: Mrs Alice Aitken Crafty or Jack; Pursuer: James Jack; Defender: John Malcolm and another, as trustees of James Waddell of Airdriehill
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
15 November 1917
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Session Inner House First Division
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Poinding, Interdict, Sheriff Court Jurisdiction, Third Party Rights
Civil Procedure Property Law Poinding Interdict Sheriff Court Jurisdiction Third Party Rights

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 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Alice Aitken Crafty or Jack

Pursuer

James Jack

Pursuer

John Malcolm and another, as trustees of James Waddell of Airdriehill

Defender

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Session Inner House First Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Competency of interdict in Sheriff Court after warrant of sale of poinded goods has been granted
  2. 2 Jurisdiction of Sheriff Court over third party claims to poinded goods

Ratio Decidendi

Interdict in the Sheriff Court is competent at the instance of third parties claiming ownership of poinded goods, even after warrant for sale has been granted, as the process is ministerial and the parties were not involved or notified in the diligence.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Interlocutors of the Sheriffs recalled
  • Remitted to the Sheriff-Substitute to proceed with the action