Innes v M'Donald
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 10 January 1899 |
| Date | 10 January 1899 |
| Docket Number | No. 60. |
| Court | Court of Session |
Ld. Kyllachy, Lord President, Lord Adam, Lord M'Laren, Lord Kinnear.
Process—Reclaiming Note—Competency—Expenses—Interlocutor approving of Auditor's report.—
The Auditor, in reporting to a Lord Ordinary his taxation of a pursuer's account of expenses, added a note to his report, stating an objection taken by the defender, with which the Auditor did not feel entitled to deal.
The question was discussed before the Lord Ordinary upon the Auditor's report and decided.
The defender having reclaimed, the pursuer objected to the competency of the reclaiming note, on the ground that no written objections to the Auditor's report had been lodged. The Court repelled the objection, and the case was put to the roll.
In an action at the instance of Mrs Helen Potts or Innes against Alexander M'Donald, the Lord Ordinary (Kyllachy), on 28th October 1898, decerned against the defender for payment to the pursuer of £33, 12s. 6d.: ‘Finds the pursuer entitled to expenses: Allows an account thereof to be lodged, and remits the same to the Auditor to tax and report.’
On 20th December the Auditor taxed the amount of the pursuer's expenses at £95, 0s. 11d., and reported.*
On 24th December 1898 the Lord Ordinary, after hearing counsel on the question referred to in the Auditor's note, pronounced this interlocutor:—‘The Lord Ordinary, having heard counsel, approves of the Auditor's report on the pursuer's account of expenses, No. 152 of process, and decerns against the defender for payment to the pursuer of the sum of £95, 0s. 11d., the taxed amount thereof.’
The defender reclaimed.
The pursuer objected to the competency of the reclaiming note, and founded on the case of Stirling-Maxwell's TrusteesSC.1 No objections had been lodged to the Auditor's report here, and the interlocutor reclaimed against did nothing but approve of the Auditor's report, and decern for the taxed amount of expenses.
Argued for the defender;—It was true that no written objection had been lodged, but that was unnecessary in the circumstances, for the Auditor had made a special report, which disclosed sufficiently the objection taken by the defender. The objection had been discussed before and disposed of by the Lord Ordinary.
Lord President.—The object of this reclaiming note is not to bring under review the decision of the Lord Ordinary on the merits, which was a final interlocutor in the ordinary sense of the statute.
But it appeared on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Appeal By Siteman Painting And Decorating Services Limited Against Simply Construct (uk) Llp
...9 R 970; 6. Crellin’s Trustee v Muirhead’s Judicial Factor 1893 21 R 21; 7. Burns v Waddell & Son (1897) 24 R 325; 8. Innes v McDonald (1899) 1 F 380; 9. The Earl of Kintore v Pirie (1904) 12 SLT 385; 10. Inglis v The National Bank of Scotland 1911 SC 6; 11. Stirling-Maxwell Trustees v Kirk......
-
R. v. Snow (R.R.), (2015) 364 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 101 (NLPC)
...and failed to pay compensation to an earlier theft victim, thereby committing offences contrary to ss. 145(3) (two counts), 145(5), 342(1)(f), 380(1)(b), and 733.1(1) (two counts) of the Criminal Code. The Crown proceeded by way of summary conviction on all The Newfoundland and Labrador Pro......