Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Lord Mure doubted the competency of the application, and therefore reported to the Court.

Pattison for the petitioner.

The Court took time to consider their judgment.

At advising,

Lord President—This bill sets out that the complainer, on 10th November 1861, raised an action against the defender before the Sheriff of Dumfries to recover payment of £17, 14s. 3d., being the amount of an account; and in that action, he says, he obtained decree on 22d November for payment of the amount, with expenses; and, on 22d November, he caused an officer of court to give a charge to the defender for payment on that decree, and he now asks letters of inhibition on this decree and charge. The question is, Whether a decree obtained under the Debts Recovery Act 1867, and a charge on that decree, can be a warrant for letters of inhibition? but that depends, in the first instance, on whether letters of inhibition could competently issue on a decree obtained under the Small Debt Act, 7 Will. IV., and 1 Vict., c.

As regards decrees obtained under the former Act—the Small Debt Act—the Court are of opinion that letters of inhibition cannot competently proceed on such decree, and that the practice which has hitherto prevailed, of refusing to issue such letters, is correct. That statute provides expressly every right that the pursuer of a small debt action is to have in virtue of the statute and decree. The form of summons, the manner in which it is dealt with, the procedure in the action, the form of decree, are all provided expressly; and, in particular, it is provided that, on the extract decree, execution

Page: 84↓