Scottish Court of Session Decisions

This case turned upon the question whether a proprietor was divested by a disposition ex facie absolute, but “alleged” (it is remarked in the special case prepared by the Sheriff) “to be qualified by a back-letter, in which it was stated that the disposition was a security only.” The back-letter was unstamped. The Court holding that they were entitled to look only to the facts of the case as disclosed to them in the Sheriff's case, and that as there it was not so much as stated that a back-letter existed, though if it did it was null from want of a stamp, decided, affirming the judgment of the Sheriff, that the proprietor was so divested, and sustained the objection to his name being retained on the register.

EXPENSES.

The question of expenses in reference to the Dumbartonshire appeals was then gone into. Mr Monro

Page: 51↓

contended that, following the rule observed for the last two years, each case should be treated as standing by itself, and that no attempt should be made to strike a balance in favour of either party. His clients (the Conservative interest) had supported 12 appeals, and had been successful in 7; and in opposing appeals on the other side, amounting to 14 in all, they had been successful in 10. His clients had therefore, out of 26 appeals, been successful in 17.