Page: 142↓
A petition to the Sheriff craved delivery of four lambs, failing which, decree for £10 as the price or value of the lambs, “or such other sum as shall be ascertained to be the price or value.” Held that the appeal was competent.
This was an appeal from the Sheriff-Court of Lanarkshire. The appellants, the Shotts Iron Co., on 28th March 1871 presented a petition to the Sheriff, setting forth that, on or about 2d January preceding, four one-year-old lambs or hoggs belonging to them strayed or were taken away by some unknown person from their farm, which marches with the respendent's; that the petitioners' grieve recently discovered the lambs in the possession of the respondent on his farm, and applied for delivery thereof, which was refused. The petition prayed the Sheriff “to decern and ordain the respondent instantly to deliver up to the petitioners, or to the said Andrew Robb for their behoof, the said four one-year-old lambs or hoggs, the property of the said Shotts Iron Co.; and failing the respondent doing so within such period as your Lordship shall appoint, to decern and ordain the respondent to pay to the petitioners the sum of £10 sterling as the price or value of the said four one-year-old lambs or hoggs, or such other sum as shall be ascertained to be the price or value thereof in the event of appearance being entered.” After proof, the Sheriff-Substitute ( Logie) assoilzied the defender, and the Sheriff ( Bell) adhered; whereupon this appeal was brought by the petitioners.
No objection was teken to the competency when the appeal appeared in the Single Bills. When the case was called on the short roll, Guthrie Smith and R. V. Campbell, for the respondent, without pleading the incompetency of the appeal, called the attention of the Court to the amount involved in the case, leaving it for the Court to decide whether there was jurisdiction. The following cases were referred to— Cooper v. Bone, 2 Sh. 5; Cameron v. Smith, 9 D. 507; Purves v. Brock, 6 Macph. 1003.
Millar, Q.C., and Scott, for the appellants, maintained that the appeal was competent. The first part of the prayer of the petition was for delivery; that was the primary conclusion; and the conclusion for payment of money could not be reached till the decree for delivery had been granted, and the respondent had failed to make delivery. Further, as to the sum of £10 specified in the second part of the prayer, that was followed by the words, or such other sum as should be ascertained to be the price or value of the lambs, which might therefore be a much larger
Page: 143↓
The Court unanimously held that the appeal was competent, but, on the merits, their Lordships adhered to the opinion of the Court below, and dismissed the appeal.
Solicitors: Agent for Pursuer— Archibald Melville, W.S.
Agent for Defender— W. B. Glen, S.S.C.