Mackenzie v. Baird's Trustees [1907] ScotLR 555 (19 March 1907)

Mackenzie v. Baird's Trustees [1907] ScotLR 555 (19 March 1907)

The pursuer failed to make relevant averments distinguishing the alleged extra services from his ordinary duties as factor, and did not specify any agreement or basis for extra remuneration. In the absence of such averments, the claims for extra remuneration were irrelevant and properly dismissed.

Citation
[1907] ScotLR 555
Parties
Pursuer: John Mackenzie; Defenders: Walter Lumley and another, as trustees of the late George Alexander Baird
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
19 March 1907
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of Lord Ordinary affirmed.
Legal Topics
Master and Servant, Agent and Principal, Quantum Meruit, Recompense, Scope of Employment, Extra Services, Relevancy of Pleadings
Contract Law Employment Law Master and Servant Agent and Principal Quantum Meruit Recompense Scope of Employment Extra Services +1 more

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Mackenzie

Pursuer

Walter Lumley and another, as trustees of the late George Alexander Baird

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer is entitled to extra remuneration for services alleged to be outside his ordinary duties as factor.
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer's averments are relevant to support claims for extra remuneration on a quantum meruit basis.

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer failed to make relevant averments distinguishing the alleged extra services from his ordinary duties as factor, and did not specify any agreement or basis for extra remuneration. In the absence of such averments, the claims for extra remuneration were irrelevant and properly dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of Lord Ordinary affirmed.

Orders

  • Proof allowed on first conclusion (damages for dismissal without due notice).
  • Second and third conclusions (claims for extra remuneration) dismissed as irrelevant.