M'Sorley v. Archibald [1921] ScotLR 31 (05 November 1921)
Granting the motion to restrict conclusions would expose the defender to a double trial of the same factual issues before two tribunals, which is an unwarranted hardship; therefore, the motion is refused and the case is remitted to the Sheriff for proof.
- Citation
- [1921] ScotLR 31
- Parties
- Pursuer: Mrs Mary Rennie or M'Sorley; Defender: John Archibald
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judgment Date
- 05 November 1921
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Motion to Restrict Conclusions After Remit for Jury Trial
- Outcome
- motion refused; case remitted to Sheriff for proof
- Legal Topics
- Remit to Court of Session, Jury Trial, Restriction of Conclusions, Damages for Rape, Affiliation and Aliment
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Mrs Mary Rennie or M'Sorley
Pursuer
John Archibald
Defender
Procedural Posture
Civil / Motion to Restrict Conclusions After Remit for Jury Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the pursuer may abandon the conclusion for affiliation and restrict the action to damages for rape after remit for jury trial
- 2 Whether such restriction would unfairly expose the defender to double trial of the same factual issues
Ratio Decidendi
Granting the motion to restrict conclusions would expose the defender to a double trial of the same factual issues before two tribunals, which is an unwarranted hardship; therefore, the motion is refused and the case is remitted to the Sheriff for proof.
Court Disposition
motion refused; case remitted to Sheriff for proof
Orders
- Refused motion to restrict conclusions of the action
- Remitted the cause to the Sheriff-Substitute to proceed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment