Fisken v. Fisken [1900] ScotLR 38_4 (20 October 1900)

Fisken v. Fisken [1900] ScotLR 38_4 (20 October 1900)

Omission to print the interlocutor closing the record does not render the reclaiming-note incompetent, as the statute requires only the authenticated record to be boxed, not the interlocutor as proof of authentication.

Citation
[1900] ScotLR 38_4
Parties
Pursuer and Reclaimer: William Fisken; Defender and Respondent: Mrs Isabella Treasurer or Fisken
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
20 October 1900
Procedural Posture
Divorce Action / Reclaiming Note (appeal) Against Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor
Outcome
Objection to competency repelled; reclaiming-note accepted.
Legal Topics
Competency of Reclaiming Note, Printing Requirements, Authentication of Record
Civil Procedure Family Law Competency of Reclaiming Note Printing Requirements Authentication of Record

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Fisken

Pursuer and Reclaimer

Mrs Isabella Treasurer or Fisken

Defender and Respondent

Procedural Posture

Divorce Action / Reclaiming Note (appeal) Against Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does omission to print the interlocutor closing the record render the reclaiming-note incompetent under statutory requirements?

Ratio Decidendi

Omission to print the interlocutor closing the record does not render the reclaiming-note incompetent, as the statute requires only the authenticated record to be boxed, not the interlocutor as proof of authentication.

Court Disposition

Objection to competency repelled; reclaiming-note accepted.

Orders

  • Case sent to the roll for further procedure.