Warrand v Watson
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 16 January 1907 |
| Date | 16 January 1907 |
| Docket Number | No. 64. |
| Court | Court of Session |
Lord President, Lord M'Laren, Lord Pearson, Lord Kinnear.
ExpensesJoint and several decree for expenses.
When a party to an action desires to obtain decree for expenses against several opponents, jointly and severally, it is not necessary that he should have on record a conclusion or a plea to that effect, but he must move for decree in that form at the time he asks for expenses, and it is too late to do so for the first time on the motion for approval of the Auditor's report.
(Sequel to Warrand v. Watson, reported of date Dec. 16, 1905, 8 F. 253, and of date July 19, 1906, 8 F. 1098.)
Captain Alexander Redmond Bewley Warrand of Bught brought an action, on 23d September 1904, in the Sheriff Court at Inverness against Donald Watson and a number of other defenders, all in dwellers in the town of Inverness, in which he craved that they should be interdicted from fishing for salmon in his waters in the River Ness on certain days. The prayer of the petition concluded with these words:To grant interim interdict, and to find the defenders liable in expenses, in the event of their offering opposition hereto. There was no plea in law dealing with expenses.
The Sheriff, without hearing proof, granted interdict de plano, but on appeal the First Division recalled that interlocutor, and allowed a proof as to the acts of trespass alleged to have been committed by the defenders. The proof proceeded before Lord M'Laren, and was reported to the Division, and thereafter the Court, on 19th July 1906, pronounced an interlocutor granting interdict against certain of the defenders and assoilzieing the remainder. That interlocutor contained a finding of expenses in the following terms:Find the said A, B, C, and D, the persons against whom interdict had been pronounced, liable to the complainer in expenses, and find the complainer liable in expenses to the respondents E, F, G, and H, the persons against whom interdict had been refused, and remit the accounts of said expenses to the Auditor to tax and report.
The Auditor having reported, the complainer, on 21st December 1906, moved the Court to approve the report, and to grant decree for the taxed amount of his expenses against A, B, C, and D, jointly and severally.
These respondents objected to decree going out against them jointly and severally, and argued;The finding of expenses had already been pronounced and was final, and it was in general terms, which excluded joint...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Appeal In The Cause Graham Ferguson And Another Against Barbara Gregors And Others
...liable was misplaced. In the absence of such words, the liability of the respondents was pro rata and joint: per Warrand v Watson 1907 S.C. 432 at 434. Submissions for Mrs Gregors Response to Appellants’ Appeal [23] Mrs Gregors submitted that ground one of the appellants’ argument was ill f......
-
Kilmarnock Theatre Company v Buchanan
...and James Robert Mackay, chartered accountant there, the liquidators of the Kilmarnock Theatre Company, Limited. 1 Warrand v. Watson, 1907 S. C. 432; S.S. Fulwood, Limited, v. Dumfries Harbour Commissioners, 1907 S. C. 2 Liquidator of the Consolidated Copper Co. of Canada v. Peddie, &c.SC, ......
-
Wilson v Laing
...us to decide this case in the manner your Lordships propose. The Courtanswered the question of law in the negative. 1 Warrand v. Watson, 1907, S. C. 432. 1 Challis v. London and South-Western Railway Co., [1905] 2 K. B. 154; Falconer v. London and Glasgow Engineering and Iron Shipbuilding C......
-
Herriot v Jacobsen
...jointly and severally. 1 Fraser v. CameronSC, March 8, 1892, 19 R. 564; Macgown v. CrambSC, Feb. 19, 1898, 25 R. 634. 1 Warrand v.waston,1907,S.C. 432. ...