M'connell & Reid v. W. & G.Muir [1906] ScotLR 43_641 (26 May 1906)

M'connell & Reid v. W. & G.Muir [1906] ScotLR 43_641 (26 May 1906)

There were no special or exceptional circumstances averred or admitted to justify departing from the general rule that an illiquid claim cannot be set off against a liquid claim. The defenders' counterclaim was neither liquid nor in the process of being made liquid, and the pending multiplepoinding actions did not alter this. The interlocutor of the Sheriff-Substitute was restored, repelling the defences and decerning against the defenders.

Citation
[1906] ScotLR 43_641
Parties
Pursuer: M'Connell & Reid; Defender: W. & G. Muir
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
26 May 1906
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Sheriff to Court of Session Inner House Second Division
Outcome
Appeal sustained; interlocutor of Sheriff recalled; interlocutor of Sheriff-Substitute restored; defences repelled; decree against defenders; defenders found liable in expenses.
Legal Topics
Compensation, Set Off, Liquid and Illiquid Claims, Multiplepoinding, Constitution of Debt, Sist (stay of Proceedings)
Commercial Law Civil Procedure Compensation Set Off Liquid and Illiquid Claims Multiplepoinding Constitution of Debt Sist (stay of Proceedings)

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M'Connell & Reid

Pursuer

W. & G. Muir

Defender

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an illiquid claim can be set off against a liquid claim in the absence of special circumstances
  2. 2 Whether the defenders' counterclaim was sufficiently liquid or in the process of being made liquid to justify a sist or set-off

Ratio Decidendi

There were no special or exceptional circumstances averred or admitted to justify departing from the general rule that an illiquid claim cannot be set off against a liquid claim. The defenders' counterclaim was neither liquid nor in the process of being made liquid, and the pending multiplepoinding actions did not alter this. The interlocutor of the Sheriff-Substitute was restored, repelling the defences and decerning against the defenders.

Court Disposition

Appeal sustained; interlocutor of Sheriff recalled; interlocutor of Sheriff-Substitute restored; defences repelled; decree against defenders; defenders found liable in expenses.

Orders

  • Sustain the appeal
  • Recall the interlocutor of the Sheriff