Crichton Brothers v. Crichton [1902] ScotLR 40_60 (12 November 1902)

Crichton Brothers v. Crichton [1902] ScotLR 40_60 (12 November 1902)

Bankrupt defenders should not be required to find caution for expenses as a condition of continuing to litigate, given their inability to do so and the potential injustice of imposing such a requirement, especially as it could affect their discharge from bankruptcy. The process should be sisted against them, allowing the action to proceed against the trustee of the third defender.

Citation
[1902] ScotLR 40_60
Parties
Pursuers: Robert Crichton and David Gentle Crichton; Defender: Mrs Margaret West or Crichton; Defender: John Crichton; Defender: James Crichton
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
12 November 1902
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Inner House Second Division, Court of Session
Outcome
Appeal sustained; interlocutors of Sheriff-Substitute and Sheriff recalled; process sisted against John and James Crichton; action to proceed against Mrs Crichton's trustee.
Legal Topics
Caution for Expenses, Bankrupt Defenders, Process Sisted
Civil Procedure Bankruptcy Damages Caution for Expenses Bankrupt Defenders Process Sisted

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Crichton and David Gentle Crichton

Pursuers

Mrs Margaret West or Crichton

Defender

John Crichton

Defender

James Crichton

Defender

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Inner House Second Division, Court of Session

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether bankrupt defenders should be required to find caution for expenses as a condition of continuing to litigate
  2. 2 Whether the process should be sisted against bankrupt defenders who failed to find caution

Ratio Decidendi

Bankrupt defenders should not be required to find caution for expenses as a condition of continuing to litigate, given their inability to do so and the potential injustice of imposing such a requirement, especially as it could affect their discharge from bankruptcy. The process should be sisted against them, allowing the action to proceed against the trustee of the third defender.

Court Disposition

Appeal sustained; interlocutors of Sheriff-Substitute and Sheriff recalled; process sisted against John and James Crichton; action to proceed against Mrs Crichton's trustee.

Orders

  • Recall interlocutors of 6th and 30th May and 4th August 1902.
  • Remit to Sheriff to sist process against John and James Crichton.