Paxton and Others v. Brown [1908] ScotLR 323 (14 January 1908)

Paxton and Others v. Brown [1908] ScotLR 323 (14 January 1908)

The rule that separate and unconnected pursuers cannot sue together on independent claims is settled law. The present pursuers were not connected in the matter sued for, nor aggrieved by the same act. The action as laid was incompetent, but modern practice allows amendment to restrict the action to a competent pursuer, avoiding unnecessary expense.

Citation
[1908] ScotLR 323
Parties
Pursuer: John Paxton and William Crawford (tutors and curators); Pursuer: James Herriot; Defender: Isabella Annie Brown
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
14 January 1908
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor
Outcome
Lord Ordinary's interlocutor recalled; action allowed to be amended to proceed at the instance of Herriot alone; defender awarded expenses since closing of record.
Legal Topics
Competency of Actions, Joinder of Parties, Amendment of Pleadings, Accounting
Civil Procedure Competency of Actions Joinder of Parties Amendment of Pleadings Accounting

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Paxton and William Crawford (tutors and curators)

Pursuer

James Herriot

Pursuer

Isabella Annie Brown

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether two or more independent pursuers with separate and unconnected claims of debt can competently sue in the same action.
  2. 2 Whether the action as laid was incompetent and if so, whether it could be amended.

Ratio Decidendi

The rule that separate and unconnected pursuers cannot sue together on independent claims is settled law. The present pursuers were not connected in the matter sued for, nor aggrieved by the same act. The action as laid was incompetent, but modern practice allows amendment to restrict the action to a competent pursuer, avoiding unnecessary expense.

Court Disposition

Lord Ordinary's interlocutor recalled; action allowed to be amended to proceed at the instance of Herriot alone; defender awarded expenses since closing of record.

Orders

  • Recall the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor.
  • Open up the record and allow amendment of the summons in terms of the minute of amendment.