Cook v. Barnton Hotel Co., Ltd, and Others [1900] ScotLR 37_757 (12 June 1900)

Cook v. Barnton Hotel Co., Ltd, and Others [1900] ScotLR 37_757 (12 June 1900)

The amendment to add 'or severally' was competent under section 29 of the Court of Session Act 1868 because it was necessary to determine the real controversy and did not increase the sum at issue. The amendment did not prejudice any right of relief among the defenders, and the court could reserve such rights in its interlocutor if necessary.

Citation
[1900] ScotLR 37_757
Parties
Pursuer: John Macfarlane Cook; Defender: Barnton Hotel Company, Limited; Defender: Daniel Macdonald; Defender: William Ritchie Rodger; Defender: John Patterson
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
12 June 1900
Procedural Posture
Civil / Reclaiming Motion (appeal) Against Interlocutor Allowing Amendment of Summons
Outcome
interlocutor adhered to; amendment allowed
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Joint and Several Liability, Court of Session Act 1868 Section 29
Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Joint and Several Liability Court of Session Act 1868 Section 29

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Macfarlane Cook

Pursuer

Barnton Hotel Company, Limited

Defender

Daniel Macdonald

Defender

William Ritchie Rodger

Defender

John Patterson

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Reclaiming Motion (appeal) Against Interlocutor Allowing Amendment of Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether amendment to add 'or severally' to conclusions of summons is competent under section 29 of the Court of Session Act 1868
  2. 2 Whether such amendment prejudices rights of relief among defenders

Ratio Decidendi

The amendment to add 'or severally' was competent under section 29 of the Court of Session Act 1868 because it was necessary to determine the real controversy and did not increase the sum at issue. The amendment did not prejudice any right of relief among the defenders, and the court could reserve such rights in its interlocutor if necessary.

Court Disposition

interlocutor adhered to; amendment allowed

Orders

  • Summons to be amended as proposed by pursuer
  • Court adhered to Lord Ordinary's interlocutor