Jaffray v Jaffray
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 17 February 1909 |
| Date | 17 February 1909 |
| Docket Number | No. 97. |
| Court | Court of Session |
Lord Guthrie, Lord President, Lord M'Laren, Lord Kinnear.
Husband and Wife—Interim award of expenses to wife in consistorial action.—
In an action of divorce for adultery at the instance of a husband, the Lord Ordinary assoilzied the defender and found her entitled to expenses. The amount of the account of expenses subject to taxation was £267, towards which interim awards amounting to £45 had been made. The pursuer having reclaimed, the defender, averring that she was without means to instruct her agents to support the judgment of the Lord Ordinary, craved the Court to ordain the pursuer to make payment of the balance of £222, or to remit the said account for taxation and to ordain the pursuer to pay the taxed amount thereof. The Court, considering that the pursuer was entitled to sufficient funds to enable her to maintain the decree, but that it would not be necessary to instruct her agent and counsel for a considerable time, granted her an interim award of £15.
On 5th May 1908 Robert Jaffray raised an action of divorce for adultery against his wife, Mrs Jane M'Dougall Duncan or Jaffray.
On 30th June, 20th October, and 3d November the Lord Ordinary (Guthrie) decerned against the pursuer for three separate sums of £15 each to account of the expenses of the case, i.e., for £45 in all.
On 10th December 1908 the Lord Ordinary assoilzied the defender from the conclusions of the action, and found her entitled to expenses.
On 31st December the pursuer reclaimed, and on 6th January 1909 the reclaiming note was sent to the roll of the First Division.
On 17th January 1909 the defender, in Single Bills, presented to the Court a note, in which she stated that she was without means, and prayed the Lord President to move the Court to ordain the pursuer to make payment of £222, being the balance of her account of expenses, viz., £267, after deduction of the £45 already awarded, or to remit the said account for taxation and to ordain the pursuer to pay the taxed amount thereof.
Counsel for the defender referred to Hoey v. HoeySC.1
Argued for the pursuer and reclaimer;—The Court should not deal at this stage with the expenses awarded in the Outer-House. The interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary, including his finding with regard to expenses, was before the Court for review. All that the Court could competently be asked to do was to award such a sum as would enable the defender to defend the judgment in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kidd v Paull and Williamsons LLP
...referred to: Anderson v Anderson (1896) 4 SLT 36 Cameron andWaterston v Muir & Sons (1861) 23 D 535; 33 Scot Jur 272 Jaffray v Jaffray 1909 SC 577; 1909 1 SLT 234 Logan and ors (Byres' Trs) v Gemmell and ors (1896) 4 SLT 21 Mars UK Ltd v Teknowledge Ltd [1999] 2 Costs LR 44; [2000] FSR 138;......
-
Martin & Co (uk) Limited For An Order Under Section 1 Of The Administration Of Justice Act 1972
...the purpose of defending an action of divorce brought against her; the final authority cited for this proposition is Jaffray v Jaffray, 1909 SC 577 . That is obviously based on a state of the law of matrimonial property that has long since gone, but the important point for present purposes ......
-
Anderson v Anderson
...an interim award of 10, 10s. towards her expenses in the Inner House. Johnston v. JohnstonSC, (1903) 5 F. 336, and Jaffray v. Jaffray, 1909 S. C.577, On 11th November 1926 William Stewart Anderson, Grandtully Mill, Strathtay, brought an action for divorce on the ground of desertion against ......
-
Bonnar v Bonnar
...prayer of the note. 1 Fraser, Husband and Wife, 2nd edition, vol. i., p. 852. 2 Petrie v. Petrie, 1910 S. C. 136. 1 Jaffray v. Jaffray, 1909 S. C. 577. 2 Dalgleish v. Dalgleish, (1878) 5 R. 3 Ritchie v. Ritchie, (1874) 1 R. 826; Montgomery v. Montgomery, (1880) 8 R. 26. ...