Paterson v. Wallace [1908] ScotLR 97 (24 October 1908)

Paterson v. Wallace [1908] ScotLR 97 (24 October 1908)

The Court refused to allow the defender to add a plea of no title to sue at the appellate stage because there was no substantive defence on the merits, and the amendment would only settle a technical point without affecting the real question in dispute. The Act of Sederunt 1907 did not empower amendment of the instance in actions initiated in the Sheriff Court and appealed to the Court of Session.

Citation
[1908] ScotLR 97
Parties
Pursuer/respondent: James Barrie Paterson (as liquidator of the Patriotic Investment Society, Limited, in liquidation); Defender/appellant: William Wallace
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
24 October 1908
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session, Inner House, First Division
Outcome
Appeal refused; Sheriff's interlocutor adhered to.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Instance, Title to Sue, Powers of Amendment, Liquidator's Standing, Technical Defects in Pleadings
Civil Procedure Company Law Amendment of Instance Title to Sue Powers of Amendment Liquidator's Standing Technical Defects in Pleadings

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

Parties

James Barrie Paterson (as liquidator of the Patriotic Investment Society, Limited, in liquidation)

Pursuer/respondent

William Wallace

Defender/appellant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Act of Sederunt 20th March 1907, sec. 2(a) applies to actions initiated in the Sheriff Court and appealed to the Court of Session
  2. 2 Whether leave should be granted to amend the instance to add the company as pursuer
  3. 3 Whether a plea of no title to sue should be allowed at the appellate stage when there is no defence on the merits

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused to allow the defender to add a plea of no title to sue at the appellate stage because there was no substantive defence on the merits, and the amendment would only settle a technical point without affecting the real question in dispute. The Act of Sederunt 1907 did not empower amendment of the instance in actions initiated in the Sheriff Court and appealed to the Court of Session.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused; Sheriff's interlocutor adhered to.

Orders

  • Refused leave to add plea of no title to sue.
  • Refused amendment of instance to add company as pursuer.