Where different Actions arise upon the same fact, tending to the same end, the Pursuer cannot insist upon both.
L Hidleston v. Maxwell
Date: 19 February 1630 Case No. No 4.
The deed of contravention being ejection, the party has his election whether to insist in an action of ejection or contravention; for the Lords found, where a party has two actions upon the same fact, he may chufe either; but if both tend to the same end, whether ad pænam or reparation, chusing the one sopites the other.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Hidleston pursuing contravention upon this deed, viz. because he was ejected out of his room; and the defender alleging, That seeing the pursuer had an ordinary action of ejection competent to him in law for that deed, for which he pursued contravention; therefore that contravention should not be sustained. This allegeance was repelled; for the Lords found, That where the party had two actions in law, by which, or either of them, he might seek redress for any one deed, that he might pursue in his option either of them, at his pleasure; but where there are two actions upon one fact, si utraque tendat ad vindictam, electa una non recurrit ad alteram, quia pænam petit, et ut injurians puniatur, nisi et cum injuria damnum datum sit, tum enim post pænam petitam potest agi ad reparationem damni.
