Montgomerie and Company, Ltd, v Wallace James

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtHouse of Lords
Judgment Date18 December 1903
Judgment citation (vLex)[1903] UKHL J1218-1
Date18 December 1903

[1903] UKHL J1218-1

House of Lords

Montgomerie and Company, Limited,
and
Wallace James.
1

After hearing Counsel, as well on Monday the 16th, Tuesday the 17th, Thursday the 19th, and Friday the 20th, as Monday the 23rd, days of November last, upon the Petition and Appeal of Montgomerie and Company, Limited, registered under the Companies' Acts, and having their Registered Office at 142 West George Street, Glasgow, praying, That the matter of the Interlocutors set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Interlocutor of the Lords of Session in Scotland, of the First Division, of the 23rd of November 1898, also an Interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary there, of the 18th of July 1899, also au Interlocutor of the said Lords of Session there, of the First Division, of the 17th of November 1899, also an Interlocutor of the said Lord Ordinary there, of the 7th of June 1901, and also an Interlocutor of the said Lords of Session there, of the First Division, of the 8th of March 1902, might be reviewed before His Majesty the King in His Court of Parliament, and that the said Interlocutors might be reversed, varied, or altered, or that the Petitioners might have such other relief in the premises as to His Majesty the King in His Court of Parliament might seem meet; as also upon the printed case of John George Wallace James, lodged in answer to the said Appeal; and due consideration had this day of what was offered on either side in this Cause:

2

It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, in the Court of Parliament of His Majesty the King assembled, That the said Interlocutor of the Lords of Session in Scotland of the 17th day of November 1899, in so far as it finds the Appellants liable in the expenses of the Reclaiming Note, and also the said Interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary there, of the 7th day of June 1901, in so far as it finds that the piece of ground referred to in the Action "has been appropriated from time immemorial for the use and enjoyment of the burgesses and inhabitants," and also the said Interlocutor of the Lords of Session there, of the 8th day of March 1902, so far as it adheres to the said finding of the said Lord Ordinary, and also in so far as it finds the Respondent entitled to expenses, be, and the same are hereby, Reversed: And it is further Ordered and Adjudged, That the Note of Suspension and Interdict presented by the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Hay v O'Grady
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 4 Febrero 1992
    ...I.R. 510; [1988] I.L.R.M. 203. Mersey Docks & Harbour Board v. ProctorELR [1923] A.C. 253. Montgomerie & Co. Ltd. v. Wallace-JamesELR [1904] A.C. 73. Moore v. FullertonDLRM [1991] I.L.R.M. 29. Mullen v. Quinnsworth (No. 2)DLRM [1991] I.L.R.M. 439. Northern Bank Finance Corporation Ltd. v. C......
  • Northern Bank v Charlton
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 1 Enero 1979
    ...from the decisions in S.S. Gairloch and Coghland v. Cumberland.It was recognised also in Montgomerie and Company Limited v.Wallace-James 1904 A.C.73 where the Earl of Halsbury L.C. said at75: "It is simply a question of fact, and doubtless, where a question of fact has been decided by a tri......
  • Subesh, Suthan, Nagulananthan and Vanniyasingam and The Secretary of State for the Home Department
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 17 Marzo 2004
    ...gone wrong, or been left unclear, relating to the extent of the IAT's jurisdiction. 27 Miss Jegarajah's argument starts with Montgomerie [1904] AC 73, and proceeds via Edwards v Bairstow [1956] AC 14 to a clutch of a dozen or more cases decided from 1985 onwards. All of these decisions aro......
  • Armagas Ltd v Mundogas SA (The Ocean Frost)
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 18 Octubre 1984
    ...and hearing give evidence. The principles are well established in authoritative cases including Montgomerie & Co. Ltd. v. Wallace-James, (1904) A.C. 73; Powell v. Streatham Manor Nursing Home, (1935) A.C. 243; Watt (Thomas) v. Thomas, (1947) A.C. 484 especially per Lord Thankerton at pages......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT