Macpherson v. Drummond (Macpherson's Trustee) [1905] ScotLR 43_102 (25 November 1905)

Macpherson v. Drummond (Macpherson's Trustee) [1905] ScotLR 43_102 (25 November 1905)

The exemption of working tools from sequestration is not confined to labouring men and may apply to a dentist who uses the tools himself, regardless of registration status, provided the tools are necessary for his trade; error in designation does not bar the claim where there is no intent to mislead; the matter requires proof of necessity and value of the articles.

Citation
[1905] ScotLR 43_102
Parties
Pursuer/appellant: John Andrew Macpherson; Defender/respondent: William John Allan Drummond (Macpherson's Trustee)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
25 November 1905
Procedural Posture
Civil Bankruptcy / Appeal From Sheriff to Court of Session Inner House, Second Division
Outcome
Appeal sustained; interlocutor of Sheriff recalled; case remitted for proof of averments.
Legal Topics
Sequestration, Exemption of Working Tools, Designation Error, Dentists Act Compliance
Bankruptcy Property Law Professional Regulation Sequestration Exemption of Working Tools Designation Error Dentists Act Compliance

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Andrew Macpherson

Pursuer/appellant

William John Allan Drummond (Macpherson's Trustee)

Defender/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Bankruptcy / Appeal From Sheriff to Court of Session Inner House, Second Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether implements used by an unregistered dentist are exempt from sequestration as working tools necessary for livelihood
  2. 2 Whether error in professional designation bars equitable relief
  3. 3 Whether practising dentistry without registration is illegal under the Dentists Act 1878

Ratio Decidendi

The exemption of working tools from sequestration is not confined to labouring men and may apply to a dentist who uses the tools himself, regardless of registration status, provided the tools are necessary for his trade; error in designation does not bar the claim where there is no intent to mislead; the matter requires proof of necessity and value of the articles.

Court Disposition

Appeal sustained; interlocutor of Sheriff recalled; case remitted for proof of averments.

Orders

  • Remit to Sheriff to allow parties a proof of their averments.