Herriot v Jacobsen
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 19 June 1909 |
| Date | 19 June 1909 |
| Docket Number | No. 180. |
| Court | Court of Session |
Ld. Johnston, Lord President, Lord Kinnear, Lord Pearson.
ExpensesHusband and WifeAction against wifeHusband sisted as
defenderLiability of husband.
In the course of an action for payment brought against an unmarried woman the defender married, and the dependence of the action was intimated to her husband. He thereupon got himself sisted to the process as administrator-in-law for his wife for any interest he might have. The Lord Ordinary granted decree against the wife and against the husband as administrator-in-law for his wife and for any interest he might have, and found the defenders, as aforesaid, liable in expenses. Against this judgment the defenders reclaimed, but the Court adhered.
On the pursuer moving for expenses against the husband, jointly and severally with his wife, on the ground that he had intervened in the conduct of the case, the Court granted decree in that form for the expenses in the Inner-House, but quoad the expenses in the Outer-House adhered to the Lord Ordinary's finding.
(Sequel to Paxton v. Brown, 1908, S. C. 406.)
On 23d May 1907 an action was brought at the instance of John Paxton, William Crawford, and James Herriot, against Miss Isabella Annie Brown, and after certain proceedings (reported sub nom.Paxton v. Brown, 1908, S. C. 406, q. v.) the summons was amended and proceeded at the instance of James Herriot only. The sum sued for was 449, 19s. 7d.
After proof had been allowed, and before it was taken, the defender married Richard Francis Jacobsen, and on 6th May 1908 the Lord Ordinary appointed the pursuer to intimate the dependence of the action to Mr Jacobsen, and allowed him, if so advised, to appear in the process. Mr Jacobsen took advantage of that opportunity and lodged a minute of sist, and on 2d June 1908 the Lord Ordinary sisted him as administrator-in-law for the defender, his wife, for any interest he might have.
On 28th October 1908 the Lord Ordinary (Johnston) pronounced this interlocutor:The Lord Ordinary having heard counsel and considered the cause, along with the states, Nos. 323 and 324 of process, decerns against the defenders, Mrs Isabella Annie Brown or Jacobsen and her husband, Richard Francis Jacobsen, as administrator-in-law for his wife, and for any interest he might have, for payment to the pursuer, James Herriot, of the sum of 326, 0s. 11d. sterling, with interest thereon at the rate of 5 per centum per annum from 20th April 1907...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Swirles v Isles
...(1901) 4 F. 39; Schmidt v. Caledonian Railway Co.UNK, (1903) 5 F. 648; Kerr v. MalcolmUNK,(1906) 14 S. L. T. 358; Herriot v. Jacobsen, 1909 S. C. 1228; M'Ilwaine v. Stewart's Trustees, 1914 S. C. 934; Maclaren, Expenses, p. 3 M'Millan v. Mackinlay, 1926 S. C. 673. 1 Mathieson v. ThomsonUNK,......
-
Rodger v Weir
...v. CameronSC, (1892) 19 R. 564, Lord Justice-Clerk, at p. 566. 4 Baillie v. ChalmersUNK, (1791) 3 Pat. App. 213. 5 Herriot v. Jacobsen, 1909 S. C. 1228. 6 Maxwell v. YoungSC, (1901) 3 F. 638; Wilkinson v. Kinneil Cannel and Coking Coal Co.SC, (1897) 24 R. 1 Macgown v. CrambSC, (1898) 25 R. ......