Murphy v. Smith and Another [1920] ScotLR 131 (28 November 1920)

Murphy v. Smith and Another [1920] ScotLR 131 (28 November 1920)

There was no concluded agreement to settle the action because the apportionment of the lump sum among the individual and pupil claimants was not agreed, and the pursuer lacked authority to settle distinct claims for a lump sum without such apportionment.

Citation
[1920] ScotLR 131
Parties
Pursuer: Mrs Alice M'Gill or Murphy; Pupil Pursuer: Agnes Laughlin Murphy; Pupil Pursuer: William Murphy; Pupil Pursuer: Mary Murphy; Pupil Pursuer: Charles Murphy; Pupil Pursuer: Francis Murphy; Defender: David Smith; Defender: Edwin Heath Smith
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
28 November 1920
Procedural Posture
Civil Action for Damages / Interlocutory Decision on Settlement and Authority
Outcome
Action not settled; proof refused; action allowed to proceed.
Legal Topics
Acceptance of Tender, Settlement of Claims, Authority of Agents, Apportionment of Damages, Locus Pœnitentiæ
Contract Civil Procedure Acceptance of Tender Settlement of Claims Authority of Agents Apportionment of Damages Locus Pœnitentiæ

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Alice M'Gill or Murphy

Pursuer

Agnes Laughlin Murphy

Pupil Pursuer

William Murphy

Pupil Pursuer

Mary Murphy

Pupil Pursuer

Charles Murphy

Pupil Pursuer

Francis Murphy

Pupil Pursuer

David Smith

Defender

Edwin Heath Smith

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Action for Damages / Interlocutory Decision on Settlement and Authority

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was there a concluded agreement to settle the action?
  2. 2 Did the pursuer's agents have authority to accept the tender?
  3. 3 Is apportionment of a lump sum necessary for settlement involving multiple claimants?

Ratio Decidendi

There was no concluded agreement to settle the action because the apportionment of the lump sum among the individual and pupil claimants was not agreed, and the pursuer lacked authority to settle distinct claims for a lump sum without such apportionment.

Court Disposition

Action not settled; proof refused; action allowed to proceed.

Orders

  • Prayer of defenders for proof as to authority of pursuer's agents refused.
  • Action to proceed.