Mitchell & Muil Ltd v. Feniscliffe Products Co., Ltd, and Another [1920] ScotLR 277 (20 February 1920)

Mitchell & Muil Ltd v. Feniscliffe Products Co., Ltd, and Another [1920] ScotLR 277 (20 February 1920)

Jurisdiction was not validly founded by arrestment because, at the date of arrestment, the arrestee's prior payment by cheque had extinguished the debt due to the defenders, and thus no sum was due or arrested.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1920] ScotLR 277
Parties
Pursuer: Mitchell & Muil Limited; Defender: Feniscliffe Products Company, Limited; Arrestee: William Watt Hepburn
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
20 February 1920
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session Inner House, First Division
Outcome
appeal dismissed; judgment for defenders affirmed
Legal Topics
Arrestment Ad Fundandam Jurisdictionem, Jurisdiction by Arrestment, Counterclaim and Set Off, Proof of Debt, Effect of Accounting on Jurisdiction
Civil Procedure Jurisdiction Arrestment Ad Fundandam Jurisdictionem Jurisdiction by Arrestment Counterclaim and Set Off Proof of Debt Effect of Accounting on Jurisdiction

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Mitchell & Muil Limited

Pursuer

Feniscliffe Products Company, Limited

Defender

William Watt Hepburn

Arrestee

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether jurisdiction was validly founded by arrestment when, at the date of arrestment, the arrestee was not due any sum to the defenders due to a prior payment extinguishing the debt.
  2. 2 Whether an obligation to account, or a contingent counterclaim, suffices to found jurisdiction by arrestment when no sum is actually due at the critical date.

Ratio Decidendi

Jurisdiction was not validly founded by arrestment because, at the date of arrestment, the arrestee's prior payment by cheque had extinguished the debt due to the defenders, and thus no sum was due or arrested.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; judgment for defenders affirmed

Orders

  • Action dismissed for want of jurisdiction
  • Sheriff-Substitute's interlocutor sustained