M'Gregor v M'Gregor
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 08 July 1841 |
| Docket Number | No. 220 |
| Year | 1841 |
| Date | 08 July 1841 |
| Court | Court of Session (Inner House - First Division) |
Ld. Cookburn. B.
Husband and Wife—Divorce—Expenses—Poor's-Roll.—
M'GREGOR raised an action of divorce against his wife, and obtained the benefit of the poor's-roll. The defender applied for a sum towards payment of her expenses, before the action should be allowed to proceed. The pursuer pleaded, that having been admitted to the poor's-roll on account of his inability to pay his own expenses, it was unreasonable to expect him to pay the defender's. She ought herself to go on the poor's-roll.
The Lord Ordinary reported the matter to the Court, who, after consulting the Lords of the Second Division, were of opinion that the defender must go on the poor's-roll, but that her husband must pay any expenses not covered by that privilege which she might incur, just as he had to pay his own expenses of that description.
Thereafter, the Lord Ordinary pronounced the following interlocutor:—‘Upon report to the Lords of the First Division of the Court, and their Lordships having consulted with the Second Division, Finds that the pursuer being on the poor's-roll, the defender is also entitled to have the benefit of that roll; admits her to that roll accordingly, and remits her to Mr Macduff Rhind and Mr Archibald Broun, advocates, and Mr Thomas S. Paton, solicitor, as counsel and agent to conduct her cause; but as a party on the poor's-roll is still liable to incur certain expenses not covered by that privilege, finds that the pursuer may be liable to the defender in a sum on account of such extrajudicial or other expense.’
Held that a husband on the poor's-roll, pursuing an action of divorce, is not bound to pay such of his wife's expenses of defending the action as may be avoided by her going on the poor's-roll, but that he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mcle Article: Test Your Knowledge: Recent Developments in Insolvency Law
...questions at the end of the article. Good luck!1. Absolute Priority Rule in Individual Chapter 11 Cases: Zachary v. Cal. Bank & Tr., 811 F.3d. 1191 (9th Cir. 2016) This case involves whether the absolute priority rule codified in Bankruptcy Code section 1129(b) survived the 2005 amendments ......