Moore & Weinberg v. Ernsthausen, Ltd [1916] ScotLR 440 (02 March 1916)

Moore & Weinberg v. Ernsthausen, Ltd [1916] ScotLR 440 (02 March 1916)

Jurisdiction was validly constituted by arrestment of the bales, as property was in the defenders and warehousemen held goods at their disposal; thus, Scottish courts had jurisdiction to entertain the action.

Citation
[1916] ScotLR 440
Parties
Pursuers: Moore & Weinberg; Defenders: Ernsthausen, Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
02 March 1916
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion)
Outcome
Lord Ordinary's interlocutor recalled; first plea-in-law for defenders repelled; jurisdiction affirmed.
Legal Topics
Arrestment, Jurisdiction, Arbitration, Property in Goods
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Arrestment Jurisdiction Arbitration Property in Goods

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

Parties

Moore & Weinberg

Pursuers

Ernsthausen, Limited

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether arrestment of goods in Scotland constituted valid jurisdiction against English defenders
  2. 2 Whether property in specimen bales was in defenders at time of arrestment

Ratio Decidendi

Jurisdiction was validly constituted by arrestment of the bales, as property was in the defenders and warehousemen held goods at their disposal; thus, Scottish courts had jurisdiction to entertain the action.

Court Disposition

Lord Ordinary's interlocutor recalled; first plea-in-law for defenders repelled; jurisdiction affirmed.

Orders

  • Court recalled Lord Ordinary's interlocutor
  • Repelled first plea-in-law for defenders