William C. Gray & Sons v. William M'Coard & Sons [1920] ScotLR 218 (16 October 1920)

William C. Gray & Sons v. William M'Coard & Sons [1920] ScotLR 218 (16 October 1920)

The Act of Sederunt provides additional facilities for presenting reclaiming notes but does not contradict or qualify the provisions of the Court of Session Act 1868. The reclaiming note was competently presented on the first sederunt day.

Citation
[1920] ScotLR 218
Parties
Pursuer: William C. Gray & Sons; Pursuer Agent: Fyfe, Ireland, & Company; Defender: William M'Coard & Sons; Defender: Maclaren; Defender Agent: Cumming & Duff, W. S.
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
16 October 1920
Procedural Posture
Civil / Reclaiming Note Objection
Outcome
objection repelled
Legal Topics
Competency of Reclaiming Note, Court of Session Act 1868 Section 94, Act of Sederunt 1913 D(i)4
Civil Procedure Competency of Reclaiming Note Court of Session Act 1868 Section 94 Act of Sederunt 1913 D(i)4

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William C. Gray & Sons

Pursuer

Fyfe, Ireland, & Company

Pursuer Agent

William M'Coard & Sons

Defender

Maclaren

Defender

Cumming & Duff, W. S.

Defender Agent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Reclaiming Note Objection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a reclaiming note against a final interlocutor pronounced in vacation more than twenty-one days before the second box-day was competently presented on the first ensuing sederunt day

Ratio Decidendi

The Act of Sederunt provides additional facilities for presenting reclaiming notes but does not contradict or qualify the provisions of the Court of Session Act 1868. The reclaiming note was competently presented on the first sederunt day.

Court Disposition

objection repelled

Orders

  • The Court repelled the objection to competency of the reclaiming note