Paterson v. Best [1900] ScotLR 37_827 (26 June 1900)

Paterson v. Best [1900] ScotLR 37_827 (26 June 1900)

Section 4 of the Railway Companies (Scotland) Act 1867 does not apply as the company had no undertaking, plant, or works; the nobile officium is not properly invoked in these circumstances; and the prior appointment of a judicial factor remains valid due to insufficient evidence of supersession.

Citation
[1900] ScotLR 37_827
Parties
Petitioner: Duncan Wilkie Paterson; Respondent: John Best; Judicial Factor: George Todd Chiene
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
26 June 1900
Procedural Posture
Petition for Appointment of Judicial Factor / Final Judgment
Outcome
petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Factor Appointment, Nobile Officium, Statutory Interpretation, Sequestration

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 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Duncan Wilkie Paterson

Petitioner

John Best

Respondent

George Todd Chiene

Judicial Factor

Procedural Posture

Petition for Appointment of Judicial Factor / Final Judgment

  1. 1 Whether section 4 of the Railway Companies (Scotland) Act 1867 applies to a company with no undertaking
  2. 2 Whether the nobile officium of the Court can be exercised to appoint a judicial factor in these circumstances
  3. 3 Whether the prior appointment of a judicial factor precludes a new appointment

Ratio Decidendi

Section 4 of the Railway Companies (Scotland) Act 1867 does not apply as the company had no undertaking, plant, or works; the nobile officium is not properly invoked in these circumstances; and the prior appointment of a judicial factor remains valid due to insufficient evidence of supersession.

Court Disposition

petition dismissed

Orders

  • petition for appointment of judicial factor dismissed