Cochrane v. Chalmers [1918] ScotLR 635 (05 June 1918)

Cochrane v. Chalmers [1918] ScotLR 635 (05 June 1918)

The pursuer's case, so far as directed against the defender as former commanding officer, fails in relevancy because there is no averment that the defender was legally liable for the debts paid by the pursuer or that he had personal intromissions with the funds. Military regulations do not create a civil liability enforceable at law. As against the defender as treasurer, the pursuer's averments are insufficiently specific to support an order for accounting, but the pursuer is allowed a further opportunity to amend his pleadings to make relevant and specific averments of intromission and liability.

Citation
[1918] ScotLR 635
Parties
Pursuer: John Paterson Cochrane; Defender: Hugh Dunlop Dempster Chalmers
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
05 June 1918
Procedural Posture
Civil Action for Accounting and Relief / Inner House, First Division, on Reclaiming Motion After Amendment of Record
Outcome
Interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary recalled; cause continued to allow pursuer further opportunity to amend pleadings; all questions of expenses reserved.
Legal Topics
Liability of Commanding Officers, Accounting for Regimental Funds, Relief Between Successors in Office, Application of Military Regulations in Civil Courts
Military Law Civil Procedure Trusts and Fiduciary Duties Liability of Commanding Officers Accounting for Regimental Funds Relief Between Successors in Office Application of Military Regulations in Civil Courts

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

John Paterson Cochrane

Pursuer

Hugh Dunlop Dempster Chalmers

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Action for Accounting and Relief / Inner House, First Division, on Reclaiming Motion After Amendment of Record

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a former commanding officer is liable to account to his successor for regimental funds under military regulations or civil law.
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer has a relevant case for relief against his predecessor as commanding officer or as treasurer.
  3. 3 Whether military regulations create a civil liability enforceable in the civil courts.

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's case, so far as directed against the defender as former commanding officer, fails in relevancy because there is no averment that the defender was legally liable for the debts paid by the pursuer or that he had personal intromissions with the funds. Military regulations do not create a civil liability enforceable at law. As against the defender as treasurer, the pursuer's averments are insufficiently specific to support an order for accounting, but the pursuer is allowed a further opportunity to amend his pleadings to make relevant and specific averments of intromission and liability.

Court Disposition

Interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary recalled; cause continued to allow pursuer further opportunity to amend pleadings; all questions of expenses reserved.

Orders

  • Pursuer allowed further opportunity to amend record to state a relevant case for accounting and relief.
  • No order for accounting made at this stage; case continued.