Adam v. Adam's Trustees [1903] ScotLR 40_598 (20 March 1903)

Adam v. Adam's Trustees [1903] ScotLR 40_598 (20 March 1903)

The Court held that, given the amendments were not extensive and were appended in manuscript to the printed record, there was substantial compliance with statutory requirements; thus, the reclaiming-note was competent.

Citation
[1903] ScotLR 40_598
Parties
Pursuer: Alexander Stronach Adam; Defender: Adam's Trustees; Defender: Helen Douglas Adam
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
20 March 1903
Procedural Posture
Civil / Reclaiming Note (appeal)
Outcome
objection to competency repelled
Legal Topics
Competency of Reclaiming Note, Amendment of Record, Printing Requirements, Court of Session Act 1825, Act of Sederunt 1828
Civil Procedure Competency of Reclaiming Note Amendment of Record Printing Requirements Court of Session Act 1825 Act of Sederunt 1828

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alexander Stronach Adam

Pursuer

Adam's Trustees

Defender

Helen Douglas Adam

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Reclaiming Note (appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is a reclaiming-note incompetent if amendments to the record are appended in manuscript rather than printed?
  2. 2 Does substantial compliance with statutory printing requirements suffice?

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that, given the amendments were not extensive and were appended in manuscript to the printed record, there was substantial compliance with statutory requirements; thus, the reclaiming-note was competent.

Court Disposition

objection to competency repelled

Orders

  • case sent to the roll