Subject_1 MEMBER of PARLIAMENT. Subject_2 DIVISION VI.
Summary Complaint to the Court of Session.
Subject_3 SECT. I.
Who must be called in a Summary Complaint. - Service of a Complaint. - To whom Competent. - Within what time Competent. - Whether a separate Complaint must be preferred by each Complainer.
William Govan v. Sir George Douglas, Baronet, and Others
Date: 4 March 1796 Case No. No 243.
A meeting of freeholders who had rejected a claim presented to them, found liable in the expense of serving a petition and complaint against their judgment, because they had omitted to mark, in their minutes one of their number as objector, by which it became necessary to serve the complaint upon them all.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
William Govan, previously to the Michaelmas meeting of Roxburgh in 1795, lodged a claim for enrolment with the Sheriff-clerk.
Neither he, nor any person for him, attended the meeting.
A majority ‘found that the claim and titles did not precisely correspond; and, therefore, refused to admit the claimant to the roll.
The minutes did not specify by whom the objection was made or supported.
Mr Govan presented a petition and complaint, which was served against Sir George Douglas the preses, and all the other freeholders present at the meeting, and was followed with answers, &c.
The Court, without entering into the merits of the judgment of the freeholders, had no doubt that the complainer, in consequence of the explanations and productions since made by him, was now, at least, entitled to be admitted upon the roll; and while it was thought he had been to blame for not attending the meeting, or sending some person for him, they were of opinion, that some individual freeholder, present at it, ought to have been marked as objector, by which means the complainer would have been saved the expense of serving the petition against the rest.
The Lords unanimously “found the freeholders did wrong in refusing to admit the complainer upon the roll of freeholders of said county; therefore, granted warrant to, and ordained the Sheriff-clerk of said county, to add his name to the roll accordingly: Found the petitioner entitled to the expenses of serving this complaint, of which allowed an account to be given in, and of the full expense of extract, but no other expense.”
Alt. J. W. Murray.Act. Geo. Fergusson, Boyle.Clerk, Pringle.
Fac. Col. No 209. p. 495.
