M'Caig v. Glasgow University Court [1904] ScotLR 41_700 (02 July 1904)

M'Caig v. Glasgow University Court [1904] ScotLR 41_700 (02 July 1904)

Essential error alone is a sufficient ground for reduction of a gratuitous unilateral deed, and the pursuer is entitled to have the issues as approved by the Lord Ordinary. The Court should not interfere with the Lord Ordinary's discretion regarding the mode of trial unless there are very strong grounds, which are absent here.

Citation
[1904] ScotLR 41_700
Parties
Pursuer: Catherine M'Caig; Defender: University Court of the University of Glasgow; Defender: Donald Macgregor
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
02 July 1904
Procedural Posture
Action for Reduction of Deed / Interlocutory Appeal on Mode of Trial and Issues
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary adhered to.
Legal Topics
Reduction of Deed, Essential Error, Gratuitous Unilateral Deed, Mode of Trial, Jury Trial, Discretion of Lord Ordinary
Civil Law Trusts and Estates Contract Law Reduction of Deed Essential Error Gratuitous Unilateral Deed Mode of Trial Jury Trial +1 more

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

Parties

Catherine M'Caig

Pursuer

University Court of the University of Glasgow

Defender

Donald Macgregor

Defender

Procedural Posture

Action for Reduction of Deed / Interlocutory Appeal on Mode of Trial and Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether essential error alone is a sufficient ground for reduction of a gratuitous unilateral deed
  2. 2 Whether the case should be tried by jury or by proof before a judge
  3. 3 Whether the issues proposed by the pursuer are appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

Essential error alone is a sufficient ground for reduction of a gratuitous unilateral deed, and the pursuer is entitled to have the issues as approved by the Lord Ordinary. The Court should not interfere with the Lord Ordinary's discretion regarding the mode of trial unless there are very strong grounds, which are absent here.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary adhered to.

Orders

  • Case to be tried by jury as directed by the Lord Ordinary.
  • Issues as approved by the Lord Ordinary to be the issues for trial.