Whyte, Ridsdale, & Co., Petitioners [1912] ScotLR 872 (26 June 1912)

Whyte, Ridsdale, & Co., Petitioners [1912] ScotLR 872 (26 June 1912)

The law does not permit service of a charge by post on a Court of Session decree; in the absence of a resident messenger-at-arms, the Court may authorise a sheriff-officer to serve the charge.

Citation
[1912] ScotLR 872
Parties
Petitioner: Whyte, Ridsdale, & Company; Defender: William Murray
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
26 June 1912
Procedural Posture
Petition / Interlocutor on Service of Charge
Outcome
petition granted in part
Legal Topics
Diligence, Service of Process, Execution of Decree
Civil Procedure Debt Recovery Diligence Service of Process Execution of Decree

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 1 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Whyte, Ridsdale, & Company

Petitioner

William Murray

Defender

Procedural Posture

Petition / Interlocutor on Service of Charge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a charge upon a Court of Session decree can be served by post
  2. 2 Whether a sheriff-officer can be authorised to serve a charge where no messenger-at-arms is available

Ratio Decidendi

The law does not permit service of a charge by post on a Court of Session decree; in the absence of a resident messenger-at-arms, the Court may authorise a sheriff-officer to serve the charge.

Court Disposition

petition granted in part

Orders

  • Warrant granted to any sheriff-officer in Caithness to charge the defender William Murray upon the extract-decree and to execute all legal diligence if payment is not made.
  • Dispensed with reading of the minute book and authorised a certified copy of the interlocutor to be used in place of extract.