Ferguson v. Aberdeen Parish Council [1916] ScotLR 619 (25 May 1916)

Ferguson v. Aberdeen Parish Council [1916] ScotLR 619 (25 May 1916)

A servant cannot recover insurance proceeds from a policy effected by the master covering the servant's property without the servant's knowledge or ratification, especially where no surplus was recovered beyond the master's own loss.

Citation
[1916] ScotLR 619
Parties
Pursuer: Elizabeth Reid Ferguson; Defenders: Parish Council of the City Parish of Aberdeen
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
25 May 1916
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Sheriff Court
Outcome
appeal dismissed; interlocutor of Sheriff-Substitute recalled; third plea-in-law for pursuer repelled
Legal Topics
Fire Insurance, Third Party Rights, Servant's Property, Jus Quaesitum Tertio
Insurance Law Employment Law Fire Insurance Third Party Rights Servant's Property Jus Quaesitum Tertio

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

Parties

Elizabeth Reid Ferguson

Pursuer

Parish Council of the City Parish of Aberdeen

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal From Sheriff Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a servant can recover insurance proceeds from a policy effected by the master covering the servant's property without the servant's knowledge or ratification
  2. 2 Whether the master is bound to account to the servant for insurance proceeds received for the servant's property

Ratio Decidendi

A servant cannot recover insurance proceeds from a policy effected by the master covering the servant's property without the servant's knowledge or ratification, especially where no surplus was recovered beyond the master's own loss.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; interlocutor of Sheriff-Substitute recalled; third plea-in-law for pursuer repelled

Orders

  • Action dismissed
  • No relevant averment in support of pursuer's third plea-in-law