Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR DAVID DALRYMPLE, LORD HAILES.
Subject_2 JURISDICTION.
Subject_3 The Court of Session found not competent to try a question between two custom-house officers, concerning the division of a seizure.

Alexander Martin
v.
Robert Watt

Date: 17 July 1767

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

[Supplement, 5—495.]

Barjarg. The question might have been determined in Exchequer; but I think it may also be determined in this Court.

Gardenston. We have enough to do of our own, without interfering with the business of another court. It is pars judicis to stop where an action is incompetent, although the parties be willing to proceed. This I learnt from Lord Arniston when I first came to the bar.

Justice-Clerk. There is a foundation in common law for the action: the one party has chosen a jurisdiction, that of the Sheriff, and the other party has acquiesced, and has brought the cause to this Court.

President. The distribution of the revenue belongs to the Court of Exchequer: what can more relate to the revenue than the arbitrary division of seizures, according to the regulations of the Court of Exchequer.

Alemore. The seizure goes to the informer: if the division of it has been taken under the cognizance of Exchequer, this Court ought not to interfere; but, if the Exchequer has left the division to be adjusted by the parties, the jurisdiction of the Exchequer will not be exclusive.

Justice-Clerk. I recollect that disputes of this kind have been often determined in the Treasury Chamber of Exchequer. I was moved by the party having brought this trifling affair before the Sheriff without any objection on the part of the defender; but this is no good ratio decidendi. I would keep the line of jurisdiction separate.

Pitfour. The declaring of seizures belongs to the Exchequer. Shall we snatch at the opportunity (an rapienda est occasio,) to take upon us an inferior part of jurisdiction, that of dividing the seizures when declared.

Coalston. This a suit, and an account concerning forfeitures. There is a remedy in Exchequer, and that remedy is daily used. This court ought to take no cognizance of it.

The Lords found the action not competent, and altered Lord Elliock's interlocntor. They also found no expenses due.

Act. G. Buchan Hepburn. Alt. G. Wallace.