M'Lintook v. Prinzen & Van Glabbeek [1902] ScotLR 39_760 (02 July 1902)

The statutory provisions allow the extract decree to specify seven days for performance even if the interlocutor is silent; the charge was valid and suspension refused.

Citation: [1902] ScotLR 39_760
Parties: Complainer: M'Farlane & Company; Complainer: Thomas Bryce M'Lintock; Respondent: Prinzen & Van Glabbeek; Respondent: John Willocks
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judgment Date: 02 July 1902
Procedural Posture: Note of Suspension / Inner House Appeal
Outcome: appeal dismissed; interlocutor affirmed
Legal Topics: Sheriff Court Extracts, Decree Ad Factum Praestandum, Charge for Performance, Induciæ, Suspension of Charge

Civil Procedure Sheriff Court Extracts Decree Ad Factum Praestandum Charge for Performance Induciæ Suspension of Charge

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2

Parties

M'Farlane & Company

Complainer

Thomas Bryce M'Lintock

Complainer

Prinzen & Van Glabbeek

Respondent

John Willocks

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Note of Suspension / Inner House Appeal

Legal Issues

1 Whether a charge requiring consignation within seven days was valid when the interlocutor did not specify a time
2 Whether the extract decree could lawfully include a warrant to charge on seven days induciae under pain of imprisonment

Ratio Decidendi

The statutory provisions allow the extract decree to specify seven days for performance even if the interlocutor is silent; the charge was valid and suspension refused.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; interlocutor affirmed

Orders

Suspension refused as regards personal charge against M'Lintock
Suspension passed as regards charge against M'Farlane & Company