Walker v. Smith [1912] ScotLR 863_1 (06 July 1912)

Walker v. Smith [1912] ScotLR 863_1 (06 July 1912)

The established rule is that where there are two adverse judgments against the applicant and the reporters are equally divided in opinion, the applicant is not entitled to admission to the poor's roll, as the onus of showing probabilis causa litigandi is not satisfied.

Citation
[1912] ScotLR 863_1
Parties
Pursuer: Robert Walker; Defender: John James Smith
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
06 July 1912
Procedural Posture
Sheriff Court Appeal / Application for Admission to Poor's Roll on Appeal to Court of Session
Outcome
Application for admission to poor's roll refused
Legal Topics
Poor's Roll, Admission to Poor's Roll, Sheriff Court Appeal, Division of Reporters' Opinion
Civil Procedure Poor's Roll Admission to Poor's Roll Sheriff Court Appeal Division of Reporters' Opinion

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Walker

Pursuer

John James Smith

Defender

Procedural Posture

Sheriff Court Appeal / Application for Admission to Poor's Roll on Appeal to Court of Session

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an applicant should be admitted to the poor's roll when the reporters are equally divided in opinion and there are two adverse judgments against the applicant

Ratio Decidendi

The established rule is that where there are two adverse judgments against the applicant and the reporters are equally divided in opinion, the applicant is not entitled to admission to the poor's roll, as the onus of showing probabilis causa litigandi is not satisfied.

Court Disposition

Application for admission to poor's roll refused

Orders

  • Applicant refused benefit of poor's roll
  • Applicant ordered to print appeal within fourteen days