Pagan & Osborne v. Haig [1910] ScotLR 440 (23 February 1910)

Pagan & Osborne v. Haig [1910] ScotLR 440 (23 February 1910)

The Sheriff Court had no jurisdiction as the action did not relate to the defender's heritage and no arrestment was used to found jurisdiction; therefore, the action was competent only in the Court of Session. The pursuers, as mandatories, are entitled to sue if they prove authority, as Scottish practice recognises mandatories for unincorporated societies.

Citation
[1910] ScotLR 440
Parties
Pursuer: Pagan & Osborne, Honorary Secretaries and Treasurers for the Fife Fox Hounds, as mandatories of the shareholders and subscribers to said Fife Fox Hounds, with the concurrence of Colonel Alexander Sprot and Thomas H. Erskine, Masters of the said Hounds; Defender: John Haig, Lovel Hill, Windsor Forest, Berkshire, heritable proprietor of subjects at Windygates, Fife
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
23 February 1910
Procedural Posture
Civil / Reclaiming Note (appeal) Against Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor
Outcome
Court adhered to Lord Ordinary's interlocutor; defender's first plea repelled; proof before answer allowed on pursuers' authority; defender's second plea reserved.
Legal Topics
Privative Jurisdiction, Title to Sue, Unincorporated Society, Mandatories, Sheriff Courts (scotland) Act 1907
Civil Procedure Jurisdiction Contract Law Privative Jurisdiction Title to Sue Unincorporated Society Mandatories Sheriff Courts (scotland) Act 1907

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pagan & Osborne, Honorary Secretaries and Treasurers for the Fife Fox Hounds, as mandatories of the shareholders and subscribers to said Fife Fox Hounds, with the concurrence of Colonel Alexander Sprot and Thomas H. Erskine, Masters of the said Hounds

Pursuer

John Haig, Lovel Hill, Windsor Forest, Berkshire, heritable proprietor of subjects at Windygates, Fife

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Reclaiming Note (appeal) Against Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Session has jurisdiction over an action for less than £50 where the defender is resident in England but owns heritage in Scotland
  2. 2 Whether pursuers, as mandatories of an unincorporated society, have title to sue

Ratio Decidendi

The Sheriff Court had no jurisdiction as the action did not relate to the defender's heritage and no arrestment was used to found jurisdiction; therefore, the action was competent only in the Court of Session. The pursuers, as mandatories, are entitled to sue if they prove authority, as Scottish practice recognises mandatories for unincorporated societies.

Court Disposition

Court adhered to Lord Ordinary's interlocutor; defender's first plea repelled; proof before answer allowed on pursuers' authority; defender's second plea reserved.

Orders

  • Proof before answer allowed on pursuers' averments of authority to sue
  • Defender's first plea repelled