Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Subject_1 FOREIGNER.

Anderson
v.
Stenton

1735, June 20.
Case No. No. 1.

Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy

There is nothing relative to this case in Lord Elchies's notes. In his Dictionary he refers to the printed papers. They are in the Advocates' Library. Lord Leven had pronounced an interlocutor sustaining the process “in order to affect any effects which the defenders (who resided in Berwick) might have in Scotland.” In a petition, drawn by H. Home, afterwards Lord Kames, it was pleaded;—that an action simply for payment of a debt, such as this was, was very different from a forthcoming proceeding on arrestment juris dictionis fundandæ causa;—a citation of a native of Scotland residing abroad might properly be given at market cross, pier and shore, but a foreigner could not habilely be so cited,—consequently no decree containing a personal conclusion could be pronounced against him;—the pursuer has condescended on no effects in Scotland, which if he had done or were still to do, they might perhaps be adjudged to him in this process; since although arrestment be generally the first step for preservation to fix the goods within the jurisdiction, yet it is not necessary, as the jurisdiction is founded by the situation of the effects locally within the territory.

In the answer, written by Alexander Garden, it was contended that it would be time enough to condescend on effects, when the interlocutor as limited by the Ordinary became final, the argument in the petition being inconsistent, as even arrestment could not be used without previous citation.

It does not appear by any notandum upon the printed papers whether the petition was refused or not.—Editor.