Dunlop v Lambert. [Court of Session—1st Division.]
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lord Mackenzie,Lord Corehouse,Lord President,Lord Gillies |
| Judgment Date | 30 June 1837 |
| Court | Court of Session (Inner House - First Division) |
| Date | 30 June 1837 |
| Docket Number | No. 309. |
Lord Mackenzie, Lord Corehouse, Lord President, Lord Gillies
Title to Pursue—Sale—Proof.—
Sequel of the Jruy trial reported ante, p. 884, which see. The pursuers presented a bill of exceptions against the direction given by the presiding Judge, which direction was stated in these terms:—‘That as it appeared that the pursuers, at the time of furnishing the puncheon of spirits in question, had sent an invoice thereof to Matthew Robson the purchaser, bearing that the same had been insured, and that the freight thereof and insurance were charged against the said Matthew Robson in the said invoice, the pursuers were not entitled in law or interest to recover the value of the said puncheon from the defenders.’ The pursuers ‘excepted to the foresaid directions of the said Lord President, and maintained that upon the matters admitted by the said defenders, and proved in evidence before the said Jury, if they believed the evidence, the pursuers were entitled, in point of law, to a direction in their favour to the said Jury.’
In reference to the previous report of the trial, it should be mentioned that, the documentary evidence, then founded on, was now printed, and it appeared that the deposition of Matthew Robson contained, inter alia, the following statements:—that after the loss of the first puncheon, the pursuers advised him that they would forward another puncheon of equal quality and value in its place; that he paid only for the second of the two puncheons; ‘that a bill was drawn by William Dunlop & Co. (pursuers) upon this deponent, for £75, 17s., the amount of the invoice, and was renewed when due: That the said bill was so renewed, in consequence of another puncheon being sent a month later: That deponent desired Mr Dunlop to insure the same, and to charge the expenses of that and the freight in the invoice to said deponent: That the said puncheon was to be safely delivered on the quay at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, before deponent was to consider it his property: That deponent has not received a farthing for the loss: That deponent made an affidavit that the puncheon was ordered from Messrs Dunlop, and lost at sea: That deponent got a letter from Newcastle from the agents of the Ardincaple there, stating that he had to make an affidavit before a magistrate, that the puncheon that was lost was his: That the said letter was a circular letter: That deponent made...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alfred McAlpine Construction Ltd v Panatown Ltd
...(1837) 15 S 884 6 The pursuers took exception to the direction of the trial judge and the matter came before the First Division (1837) 15 S 1232. The majority of the four judges considered that the direction of the trial judge was correct. Lord Mackenzie and Lord Gillies founded particularl......