Brown v. John Hastie & Co., Ltd [1904] ScotLR 41_838 (16 July 1904)
The proposed amendment did not raise a new question essential to the real issue but was an attempt to adduce additional evidence that could have been discovered before proof closed; therefore, it was not within the scope of section 29 of the Court of Session Act 1868 and was refused.
- Citation
- [1904] ScotLR 41_838
- Parties
- Pursuer: Andrew Betts Brown and Brown Brothers & Company, Limited; Defender: John Hastie & Company, Limited
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judgment Date
- 16 July 1904
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Motion to Amend Record After Reclaiming Note
- Outcome
- motion refused
- Legal Topics
- Amendment of Record, Patent Infringement, Anticipation of Patent, Adducing New Evidence, 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.
Parties
Andrew Betts Brown and Brown Brothers & Company, Limited
Pursuer
John Hastie & Company, Limited
Defender
Procedural Posture
Civil / Motion to Amend Record After Reclaiming Note
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defenders should be allowed to amend the record after proof to introduce a new patent as anticipation evidence under section 29 of the Court of Session Act 1868.
Ratio Decidendi
The proposed amendment did not raise a new question essential to the real issue but was an attempt to adduce additional evidence that could have been discovered before proof closed; therefore, it was not within the scope of section 29 of the Court of Session Act 1868 and was refused.
Court Disposition
motion refused
Orders
- Defenders' motion to amend the record refused.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment