Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Lord President—One of the leading objects of all recent legislation and recent regulations introduced by Acts of Sederunt is to expedite the procedure of the Court; and accordingly by this Act of March 10, 1870, a term is assigned within which certain steps must be taken by an appellant. The tendency of these regulations is to enforce performance of these steps within a certain time. Here the party has a time assigned him within which his prints in the case must be lodged. He has this indulgence, that within eight days after the appeal has been held to be abandoned he may move the Court to repone him to the effect that he may insist in the appeal; but the Act of Sederunt provides that “the motion shall not be granted … except upon cause shown.”

Now, the question that we have to answer here is, —has cause been shown for the appellant's omission to perform this duty? The only cause alleged is this, that the parties' agents were wasting in useless verbal negotiations the time that should have been otherwise employed, thereby clearly violating the spirit of these regulations. And what were these negotiations? They were not really negotiations at all. The respondent had made a proposal that was not at all likely to be entertained, and it was for the purpose of communicating that proposal to his client that the agent lost all this time.

This is, in my opinion, a very bad case of failure to perform the duty required of him. In, I am inclined to say, as a general rule, that conversations and verbal negotiations are not to be taken as cause shown. If an agent intends to give a party time, let him state so distinctly in writing. Such an excuse as this we cannot entertain.