Gordon v Nakeski-Cumming
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 11 July 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 94. |
| Date | 11 July 1924 |
| Court | Court of Session |
Lord Morison, Lord President (Clyde), Lord Skerrington, Lord Cullen, Lord Sands.
Administration of JusticeProcuratorsRight of audience in Court of SessionParty litigantLitigation by married woman of full ageRight of husband to appear for herHusband and WifeAct 1532, cap. 51Married Women's Property (Scotland) Act, 1920 (10 and 11 Geo. V. cap. 64), secs. 1 and 2.
By sec. 1 of the Married Women's Property Act, 1920, the husband's right of administration in his wife's property is wholly abolished; and by sec. 2 his curatorship is limited to the period of her minority.
Held that, inasmuch as, since the passing of the Act, a husband could no longer be competently called as his wife's curator, except during her minority in an action relating to her property, the husband of a wife who had attained majority was not entitled to appear for her at the bar of the Court of Session as a party litigant.
James Harold Macdonald, Writer to the Signet, judicial factor on the estate of the late Charles Gordon of Halmyre, brought an action of multiplepoinding, in which he called as defenders (1) Miss Mary Giulia Gordon, Miss Alice Magdalene Gordon, and Miss Isabella Gordon, executrices-dative of Charles Gordon, (2) Mrs Eleanora Gordon Cumming or Nakeska otherwise Nakeski-Cumming, wife of Michael Naake Nakeska otherwise Nakeski-Cumming, and residing with him at 18 Dundonald Street, Edinburgh, and (3) Charles John Munro, chartered accountant, Edinburgh, trustee on the sequestrated estate of the said Mrs Nakeski-Cumming.
A claim was lodged on behalf of the Misses Gordon; and Mrs Nakeski-Cumming also signed and lodged a claim.
The case was sent to the Procedure Roll, and when it was called Mr Nakeski-Cumming, husband of the claimant Mrs Nakeski-Cumming, appeared at the bar in support of his wife's claim. The Lord Ordinary (Morison) raised the question whether the husband of a married woman litigant was entitled to be heard, in view of section 1 of the Married Women's Property Act, 1920,* and his Lordship invited argument upon the point. Mr Nakeski-Cumming and counsel for the other claimants having been heard, the Lord Ordinary reported the case to the First Division.
Lord Morison'sreport.The Lord Ordinary reports this cause for the direction of the Court on a question of some general importance.
The action is one of multiplepoinding and exoneration raised by the judicial factor on the estates of the late Mr Gordon of Halmyre for the purpose of distributing certain assets among the parties entitled to them. The defenders called are (1) the executrices-dative of the late Mr Gordon, (2) Mrs Cumming or Nakeska, and (3) the trustee on her sequestrated estate.
When the case was called in the Procedure Roll, the husband of the claimant Mrs Cumming or Nakeska appeared and maintained that he was entitled to be heard in support of his wife's claim. He explained that he had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Apollo Engineering Limited V. James Scott Limited
...[2004] 3 WLR 113; [2004] 3 All ER 411; [2004] 2 FLR 600; [2004] 2 FCR 481 Gillow v UKHRC (1989) 11 EHRR 335 Gordon v Nakeski-CummingENR 1924 SC 939; 61 SLR 588; 1924 SLT 640 Hepburn v Royal Alexandria Hospital NHS TrustSC [2010] CSIH 71; 2011 SC 20; 2010 SLT 1071 Kenneil v Kenneil [2006] CS......
-
Apollo Engineering Limited (in Liquidation) V. James Scott Limited
...Society v Tritonia Limited 1943 SC (HL) 88. That principle had subsequently been followed, without exception: Gordon v Nakeski-Cumming 1924 SC 939; Rush v Fife Regional Council 1984 SLT 391; Dana Ltd v Stevenson 1989 SLT (Sh Ct) 43 at page 44H-I; Clark Advertising Ltd v Scottish Enterprise ......
-
Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform v UK Bankruptcy Ltd [Court of Session Inner House Second Division]
...Newspapers Ltd [2010] CSIH 67; 2010 GWD 31-647 Frost and Parkes v Cintec International Ltd [2005] CSOH 119 Gordon v Nakeski-CummingENR 1924 SC 939; 1924 SLT 640 Izzo v Philip Ross & Co [2002] BPIR 310; (2001) 98 (35) LSG 37; 145 SJLB 216 Kenneil v Kenneil [2006] CSOH 95; 2006 GWD 22-488 McK......
-
Taylor Clark Leisure Plc V The Commissioners For Her Majesty's Revenue And Customs
...that the Act 1532 c 51 was merely subordinate legislation. In that case we relied, as the court had relied in Gordon v Nakeski-Cumming (1924 SC 939), on the version of the Act 1532 c 51 set out in the Glendook Duodecimo edition of 1681 of the Acts of the Parliament of Scotland. Counsel has ......