Lee v. Maxton [1904] ScotLR 41_281 (26 February 1904)

The appeal was incompetent due to failure to print and box the record on which the judgment appealed against was pronounced, as required by the Act of Sederunt.

Citation: [1904] ScotLR 41_281
Parties: Pursuer/appellant: J. B. W. Lee, S. S. C., Edinburgh; Defender/respondent: John Maxton, plumber, 79 High Street, Portobello
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judgment Date: 26 February 1904
Procedural Posture: Appeal From Sheriff Court / Appeal to Court of Session Inner House Second Division
Outcome: appeal dismissed
Legal Topics: Appeal Competency, Printing and Boxing Record, Act of Sederunt Compliance

Civil Procedure Appeal Competency Printing and Boxing Record Act of Sederunt Compliance

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 1 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2

Parties

J. B. W. Lee, S. S. C., Edinburgh

Pursuer/appellant

John Maxton, plumber, 79 High Street, Portobello

Defender/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Sheriff Court / Appeal to Court of Session Inner House Second Division

Legal Issues

1 Whether failure to print and box the record renders the appeal incompetent under Act of Sederunt, March 10, 1870, sec. 3, sub-sec. 1

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was incompetent due to failure to print and box the record on which the judgment appealed against was pronounced, as required by the Act of Sederunt.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

appeal dismissed for failure to comply with Act of Sederunt, March 10, 1870, sec. 3, sub-sec. 1