Johan Pringle, &c Principal Clerks of Session, v. Mrs Rose Innes, &c. and John. Gordon.
Date: 6 February 1808 Case No. No 5.
In a process, the pursuer and defender are conjunctly and severally liable to the clerks of Session for the fees of extract, although the process may have been removed out of Court by extrajudicial transaction.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The claim of the Clerks of Session arose in these circumstances.
In the year 1798, Mrs. Rose Innes of Netherdale, with concurrence of her husband, raised an action against John Gordon, Esq. of Avochie, writer to the signet, concluding for payment of certain sums of money.
After considerable litigation before the Lord Justice Clerk, Ordinary, an interlocutor was pronounced, in part sustaining, and in part repelling the pursuer's claim.
Both parties reclaimed to the Court; and the interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary was adhered to; but no expenses were found due to either party. Mutual reclaiming petitions were again presented. Both petitions were appointed to be answered; but in consequence of an extra judicial settlement, no farther proceedings took place in the action.
The clerks gave in a petition to the Court, and therein referred to the argument and authorities stated in the case of Black, supra.
The Court were clearly of opinion, that the clerks of Court could not be deprived of their dues by extrajudicial transactions; and that in all processes, whether pursued to decree or not, they were entitled to their regulated fees as certified by their collector. But as, in consequence of the preceding decision, the case was given up by the respondents, no interlocutor stands upon the records of court.
Act. Matthew Ross & William Erskine.Alt. J. Hagart & T. W. Baird.Agents, J. & C. Bremnors, & Geo Wilson.Buchanan, Clerk.
Fac. Coll. No. 30. p. 108.
*** The same thing happened in the following cases at the same time: Stirling Banking Co.—C. Crighton and D. Mill. —Arch. Johnston. —A. Robertson.
