Stevenson and Others v. Sharp [1910] ScotLR 511 (17 March 1910)

Stevenson and Others v. Sharp [1910] ScotLR 511 (17 March 1910)

The action was not a summary cause because, on the face of the initial writ, it involved a continuing obligation with a value exceeding £50. Therefore, the requirements of section 8 regarding the statement of questions of law did not apply, and the appeal was competent under section 28.

Citation
[1910] ScotLR 511
Parties
Pursuers and Appellants: Miss Marjorie Stevenson and Fyfe, Maclean, & Company; Defender and Respondent: H. D. Sharp
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
17 March 1910
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Sheriff Court / Objection to Competency of Appeal Before Inner House, First Division
Outcome
Objection to competency of appeal repelled; appeal held competent.
Legal Topics
Sheriff Courts (scotland) Act 1907, Summary Cause, Competency of Appeal, Value of Cause, Continuing Obligations
Civil Procedure Contract Law Sheriff Courts (scotland) Act 1907 Summary Cause Competency of Appeal Value of Cause Continuing Obligations

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

Parties

Miss Marjorie Stevenson and Fyfe, Maclean, & Company

Pursuers and Appellants

H. D. Sharp

Defender and Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Sheriff Court / Objection to Competency of Appeal Before Inner House, First Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the action was a 'summary cause' under the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1907
  2. 2 Whether the value of the cause exceeded £50 for purposes of appeal
  3. 3 Whether the Sheriff was required to state questions of law for appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The action was not a summary cause because, on the face of the initial writ, it involved a continuing obligation with a value exceeding £50. Therefore, the requirements of section 8 regarding the statement of questions of law did not apply, and the appeal was competent under section 28.

Court Disposition

Objection to competency of appeal repelled; appeal held competent.

Orders

  • Defender's objection to competency of appeal repelled.