Ross v. Ross's Executor and Others [1918] ScotLR 614 (24 May 1918)

Ross v. Ross's Executor and Others [1918] ScotLR 614 (24 May 1918)

A reclaiming note against an interlocutor allowing proof must be lodged with the clerk to the Division on the first box day after reclaiming days expire in vacation; failure to do so renders the reclaiming note incompetent.

Citation
[1918] ScotLR 614
Parties
Pursuer: Joseph Ross; Defenders: John James Herdman, W.S., sole executor of James Scott Ross and others
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
24 May 1918
Procedural Posture
Civil / Reclaiming Note (appeal) Against Allowance of Proof
Outcome
reclaiming note found incompetent
Legal Topics
Competency of Reclaiming Note, Procedural Time Limits, Court of Session (scotland) Act 1868, Act of Sederunt
Civil Procedure Competency of Reclaiming Note Procedural Time Limits Court of Session (scotland) Act 1868 Act of Sederunt

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

Parties

Joseph Ross

Pursuer

John James Herdman, W.S., sole executor of James Scott Ross and others

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Civil / Reclaiming Note (appeal) Against Allowance of Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a reclaiming note lodged two days after the first box day in vacation is competent under the Court of Session (Scotland) Act 1868 and relevant Acts of Sederunt.

Ratio Decidendi

A reclaiming note against an interlocutor allowing proof must be lodged with the clerk to the Division on the first box day after reclaiming days expire in vacation; failure to do so renders the reclaiming note incompetent.

Court Disposition

reclaiming note found incompetent

Orders

  • objection sustained
  • reclaiming note refused as incompetent