Young v. Healy [1909] ScotLR 710 (22 May 1909)

Young v. Healy [1909] ScotLR 710 (22 May 1909)

The Court held that the Lord Ordinary had discretion under statute to determine whether a case should proceed by jury trial or proof, and there was no general ground to interfere with that discretion in this case. The Court adhered to the Lord Ordinary's decision to allow proof rather than jury trial.

Citation
[1909] ScotLR 710
Parties
Pursuer (reclaimer): Elizabeth James Young; Defender (respondent): Christopher John Healy; Defender (respondent): James Craig
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
22 May 1909
Procedural Posture
Action of Reduction / Reclaiming Note Against Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor Refusing Jury Trial and Allowing Proof
Outcome
reclaiming note refused; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary adhered to
Legal Topics
Reduction of Deed, Force and Fear, Jury Trial Discretion, Evidence (scotland) Act 1866
Civil Procedure Property Law Reduction of Deed Force and Fear Jury Trial Discretion Evidence (scotland) Act 1866

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 1 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elizabeth James Young

Pursuer (reclaimer)

Christopher John Healy

Defender (respondent)

James Craig

Defender (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Action of Reduction / Reclaiming Note Against Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor Refusing Jury Trial and Allowing Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Lord Ordinary erred in refusing a jury trial and allowing proof in an action of reduction based on force and fear.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the Lord Ordinary had discretion under statute to determine whether a case should proceed by jury trial or proof, and there was no general ground to interfere with that discretion in this case. The Court adhered to the Lord Ordinary's decision to allow proof rather than jury trial.

Court Disposition

reclaiming note refused; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary adhered to

Orders

  • Proof allowed to proceed as ordered by the Lord Ordinary
  • No jury trial to be held