Brims & Mackay and Others v. M'Neill & Sime and Others [1907] ScotLR 819 (02 July 1907)

Brims & Mackay and Others v. M'Neill & Sime and Others [1907] ScotLR 819 (02 July 1907)

The action was incompetent as the old and new firms of Brims & Mackay had no connection of title or right to debts due to them respectively, and no joint interest. The action failed to distinguish between debts due to the old and new firms, and no assignation or mandate was pleaded. The second plea-in-law for Pattullo was sustained and the action dismissed.

Citation
[1907] ScotLR 819
Parties
Pursuer: Brims & Mackay, Solicitors, Thurso; Pursuer: Alexander Mackay, William Manson Brims, and James Young, Solicitors, Thurso; Pursuer: Trustees of the deceased James Brims, Solicitor, Thurso; Pursuer: Dissolved firm of Brims & Mackay, Solicitors, Thurso; Defender: M'Neill & Sime, S. S. C., Edinburgh; Defender: James Adam Pattullo; Defender: Henry Vetch
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
02 July 1907
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Note)
Outcome
action dismissed
Legal Topics
Competency of Joint Actions, Title to Sue, Firm Dissolution, Agency Fees, Assignment of Debts
Civil Procedure Partnership Law Competency of Joint Actions Title to Sue Firm Dissolution Agency Fees Assignment of Debts

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brims & Mackay, Solicitors, Thurso

Pursuer

Alexander Mackay, William Manson Brims, and James Young, Solicitors, Thurso

Pursuer

Trustees of the deceased James Brims, Solicitor, Thurso

Pursuer

Dissolved firm of Brims & Mackay, Solicitors, Thurso

Pursuer

M'Neill & Sime, S. S. C., Edinburgh

Defender

James Adam Pattullo

Defender

Henry Vetch

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Note)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether two unconnected firms can sue in one joint action for debts with no common interest
  2. 2 Whether the new firm of Brims & Mackay had title to sue for debts due to the old firm
  3. 3 Competency of action against Pattullo for debts incurred before and after firm dissolution

Ratio Decidendi

The action was incompetent as the old and new firms of Brims & Mackay had no connection of title or right to debts due to them respectively, and no joint interest. The action failed to distinguish between debts due to the old and new firms, and no assignation or mandate was pleaded. The second plea-in-law for Pattullo was sustained and the action dismissed.

Court Disposition

action dismissed

Orders

  • Recall interlocutor except as regards dismissal against M'Neill & Sime
  • Sustain second plea-in-law for Pattullo