Stewart v Williamson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 April 1910 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1910] UKHL J0429-1 |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Docket Number | No. 7. |
[1910] UKHL J0429-1
House of Lords
After healing Counsel, as well on Friday as Tuesday last, upon the Petition and Appeal of John Stewart, lately residing at Fordie, near Crieff, and now at Orchardbank, Muthill, praying, That the matter of the Interlocutor set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Interlocutor of the Lords of Session in Scotland, of the First Division, of the 13th of July 1909, might be reviewed before His Majesty the King in His Court of Parliament, and that the said Interlocutor might be reversed, varied, or altered, or that the Petitioner 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 Colonel David Robertson Williamson, of Lawers, lodged in answer to the said Appeal; and due consideration this day had of what was offered on either side in this Cause:
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 13th day of July 1909, complained of in the said Appeal, be, and the same is hereby, Affirmed, and that the said Petition and Appeal be, and the same is hereby, dismissed this House: And it is further Ordered, That the Appellant do pay, or cause to be paid, to the said Respondent the Costs incurred in respect of the said Appeal, the amount thereof to be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments: And it is also further Ordered, That unless the Costs, certified as aforesaid, shall be paid to the party entitled to the same...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Macdonald Estates Limited V. Ncp
...to the term "arbitration" where it was used in earlier legislation, in Stewart v Williamson 1909 SC 1254 (and, in the House of Lords, 1910 SC (HL) 47; more fully reported at [1910] AC 455), and should therefore be taken to have been intended by Parliament when it used the same term in the 1......
- Kidman v Commonwealth
-
Roger v Hutcheson
...908. 5 Jackson, Agricultural Holdings Acts, 190814, (4th ed.) p. 153. 6 Rankine, Personal Bar, pp. 4 and 5. 7 Stewart v. Williamson, 1910 S. C. (H. L.) 47, per Lord Halsbury, at p. 49. 8 10 Edw. VII. and 1 Geo. V. cap. 30. 9 Maxwell, Interpretation of Statutes, (6th ed.) p. 683; Lismore v. ......
- Australian Boot Trade Employees' Federation v Whybrow & Company