Davidson v. Scott [1915] ScotLR 652 (14 May 1915)

Davidson v. Scott [1915] ScotLR 652 (14 May 1915)

The omission to append a copy of the record to the principal reclaiming note did not render the reclaiming note incompetent, as the requirement was directory and not imperative, and no prejudice was caused to the respondent. The Court followed M'Lachlan v. Nelson & Company, Limited and distinguished Blackwood v. Summers, Oxenford, & Company.

Citation
[1915] ScotLR 652
Parties
Pursuer: Donald Davidson; Defender: Miss Jessie Scott
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
14 May 1915
Procedural Posture
Civil / Reclaiming Note (appeal) in Inner House, Second Division
Outcome
objection repelled; reclaiming note allowed to proceed
Legal Topics
Competency of Reclaiming Note, Procedural Requirements, Acts of Sederunt, Judicature Act 1825
Civil Procedure Competency of Reclaiming Note Procedural Requirements Acts of Sederunt Judicature Act 1825

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Donald Davidson

Pursuer

Miss Jessie Scott

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Reclaiming Note (appeal) in Inner House, Second Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether omission to append a copy of the record to the principal reclaiming note renders the reclaiming note incompetent
  2. 2 Interpretation of procedural requirements under Acts of Sederunt and Judicature Act 1825

Ratio Decidendi

The omission to append a copy of the record to the principal reclaiming note did not render the reclaiming note incompetent, as the requirement was directory and not imperative, and no prejudice was caused to the respondent. The Court followed M'Lachlan v. Nelson & Company, Limited and distinguished Blackwood v. Summers, Oxenford, & Company.

Court Disposition

objection repelled; reclaiming note allowed to proceed

Orders

  • Objection to competency of reclaiming note repelled
  • Case allowed to proceed on merits