Page: 221↓
Objection to the competency of a reponing note against a judgment default in not lodging issues, that the interlocutor ordering the issues was not prefixed, repelled; but observed that the omission was an irregularity.
This was a reclaiming note against an interlocutor assoilzieing the defenders “in respect of the failure of the pursuer to lodge an issue or issues in terms of the preceding interlocutor of 24th January last.”
Marshall, for the defenders, objected to the competency that the interlocutor of 24th January was not prefixed to the note as well as the interlocutor assoilzieing the defenders, as required by Act of Sederunt, 11th July 1828, sec. 110.
Pattison, for the pursuer, replied that what was desiderated by the defenders was not required by the Act of Sederunt; at all events, the want of it did not amount to incompetency.
The
Page: 222↓
The Court remitted to repone on payment of expenses.
Solicitors: Agent for Pursuer— William Mackersy, W.S.
Agents for Defenders— Mackenzie, Innes, & Logan, W.S.