Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
Scottish Court of Session Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> GeorgeMMorison, Lunatic, and Walter Bain, and Penelope his Wife. Committee of his Eatate, and John Hamilton, thier Factor v The Earl of Sutherland. [1738] 2 Elchies 269 (21 June 1749)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1738/Elchies020269-002.html
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Subject_1 IDIOTRY AND FURIOSITY.
Date: GeorgeMMorison, Lunatic, and Walter Bain, and Penelope his Wife Committee of his Eatate, and John Hamilton, thier Factor
v.
The Earl of Sutherland
21 June 1749
Case No.No. 2.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
A Man by inquisition being found in England a lunatic, whereupon commission of lunacy was given by the Court of Chancery, and the Cornmittee of his estate having sued for a debt owing the lunatic in Scotland ; it was objected, that a commission by the Lord Chancellor of England out of the Court of Chancery could give no title to sue in Scotland; and the Committee, after advising with counsel in England finding that an idiot's tntor appointed in Scotland could not on that title maintain an action in England; and being therefore doubtful that the law might be found the same in Scotland, applied to the Chancellor for leave to take a letter of attorney for the lunatic, which having got, he insisted upon both titles: But the Court found that neither of them was a sufficient title to carry on the suit.— Reversed by the House of Lords, 13th February 1750, and the title sustained to give action in the appellant Morison's name. The Chancellor thought the objections to the first suit well founded, and that a Cornmittee in England could not sue in Scotland, but that yet the lunatic might sue in his own name, and that though the first suit was brought in name of his Committee as of a lunatic, which they could not do in Scotland; yet when the suit was afterwards brought in the lunatic's own, we could take no notice of his lnnacy unless a brieve of firiosity had issued, (and I supposed he added, that he had been found furious;) or if we did take notice of it, it could only be as a lunatic at large, which could not bar a suit in his name; and that the Union made no difference, for that the law would be the same in England. Vide in a paper sent me by Sir John Gordon of Inver-Gordon. (Meipso, Reporter.) (See DICT. NO. 105. p. 4595.)
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting