Douglas v. M'Kinlay [1902] ScotLR 40_238 (18 December 1902)

An interlocutor ordering a party to find caution for expenses, without specifying past or future expenses, is to be interpreted as requiring caution for future expenses only. The bond of caution for future expenses only is a sufficient fulfilment of the interlocutor.

Citation: [1902] ScotLR 40_238
Parties: Pursuer: George Dickie Rutherford Douglas; Curator and Administrator in Law of Pursuer: William Douglas; Defender: Alexander M'Kinlay
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judgment Date: 18 December 1902
Procedural Posture: Civil / Reclaiming Motion (appeal) Against Interlocutor Requiring Caution for Expenses
Outcome: prayer of the note refused
Legal Topics: Caution for Expenses, Bankruptcy and Litigation Capacity, Curator of Minor, Interpretation of Interlocutor

Civil Procedure Caution for Expenses Bankruptcy and Litigation Capacity Curator of Minor Interpretation of Interlocutor

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 1 Party arguments 2

Parties

George Dickie Rutherford Douglas

Pursuer

William Douglas

Curator and Administrator in Law of Pursuer

Alexander M'Kinlay

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Reclaiming Motion (appeal) Against Interlocutor Requiring Caution for Expenses

Legal Issues

1 Whether an order to find caution for expenses includes past expenses or only future expenses
2 Whether a bond of caution for future expenses only satisfies the interlocutor

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

prayer of the note refused

Orders

Bond of caution for future expenses only held sufficient to implement interlocutor
No order for caution for past expenses