Simpson and Company et Al v Thomson et Al
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 December 1877 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1877] UKHL J1213-1 |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Docket Number | No. 4. |
| Date | 13 December 1877 |
[1877] UKHL J1213-1
House of Lords
After hearing Counsel on Tuesday the 6th day of November last, upon the Petition and Appeal of Simpson and Company, Engineers, Grosvenor Road, London; Henderson, Hogg, and Company, Merchants, 26, Renfield Street, Glasgow; and William Dixon (Limited), Iron and Coal Masters in Glasgow, incorporated under the Companies Acts of 1862 and 1867, whose registered office is in Scotland, 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 24th (signed 28th) of November 1876, as regards the following words, "and rank and prefer the whole other claimants pari passu on said fund, and appoint a state or scheme of division of said fund to be lodged by the petitioner, showing the amount due to each claimant in respect of the above findings;" and the following words, "except such expenses, if any, as have been solely occasioned by the discussion between the claimants Thomas Thomson and others and Simpson and Company others; and with regard to said last-mentioned expenses, find the said Simpson and Company, "and Henderson, Hogg, and Company, William Dixon, Limited, John Jeffrey and Company, A. and J. Alexander, Miller and Young, the Edinburgh and Leith Brewing Company, J. Hutchison and Sons, H. Boyd, and J. K. Smith and Company, all claimants, jointly and severally liable to the said Thomas Thomson and others;" and also an Interlocutor of the said Lords of Session there, of the First Division, of the 10th (signed 13th) of March 1877, as regards the following words, "Repel the same, and decern: Approve of the state of division, No. 129 of process, lodged in terms of the Interlocutor of 24th and 28th November last: Grant warrant to the British Linen Company's Bank to make payment to the claimants of the sums to which they are respectively entitled according to the said state, with corresponding bank interest thereon from the date of consignation of the principal and interest till payment; and grant warrant and authority to the Accountant of Court, for the purpose of the said payment, to exhibit, and, when necessary, deliver up to the said Banking Company, the deposit receipts, Nos. 125 and 128 of process, and decern," might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, and that the said Interlocutors,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
W v Veolia Environmental Services (UK) Plc
...legal capacity does not "create or resurrect a liability that did not exist before the payment was made". The situation is far removed from Simpson as insurers are not bringing a claim not open to the insured. They are pursuing a subrogated claim against the defendant arising only from the ......
-
Colour Quest Ltd v Total Downstream UK Plc [QBD (Comm)]
...a contractual interest in property which has been damaged: Cattle v Stockton Waterworks (1875) LR 10 QB. 453, Simpson & Co v Thompson (1877) 3 App. Cas. 279. 72 472 In more recent years, this pragmatic exclusion has been re-emphasised in two cases of the highest authority. In Candlewood Nav......
-
Esso Petroleum Company Ltd v Hall Russell & Company Ltd (Esso Bernicia)
...are irrecoverable in negligence, as has been established for over a 100 years, ever since the decision of your Lordships' House in Simpson & Co. v. Thomson (1877) L.R. 3 App.Cas. 22Like the Lord President, I can see no injustice in this conclusion. It was suggested by Mr. Cameron, in the c......
- Electrochrome Ltd v Welsh Plastics Ltd
-
Relational economic loss (or interference with contractual relations): The last hurdle
...(D). 11 See the discussion below. 12 (1846), 52 Mass 290 (Sup Jud Ct); see Feldthusen (n 1 above) 200n8. 13 (1875) LR 10 QB 453. 14 (1877) 3 App Cas 279 (HL). © Juta and Company (Pty) cases the claims were rejected, but with out any express reliance on the fact that th e loss in question wa......
-
The Scope of Conversion: Property and Contract
...to sing athis opera house.The claimantsuccess-85 Leigh andSillavan Ltd vAliakmonShipping CoLtd (The Aliakmon)[1986] AC 785 (HL).86 (1877) 3 App Cas 279 (HL).87 ibid, 289^290.88 (1853) 2 El & Bl 216,118 ER 749.The Scope of Conversion346 r2011The Author.The Modern Law Review r2011The Modern L......