Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
Scottish Court of Session Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Ballantine v. Reddie [1884] ScotLR 22_136 (25 November 1884)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1884/22SLR0136.html
Cite as: [1884] ScotLR 22_136, [1884] SLR 22_136
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
SCOTTISH_SLR_Court_of_Session
Page: 136↓
Court of Session Outer House.
v.
Facts:
The accountant to whom a remit had been made in an action of accounting lodged his report without having received his fee. On his motion for payment— held that the parties to the action were jointly and severally liable for his fee.
This was an action of accounting. It was brought in May 1877 by William Wood, C.A., trustee upon the sequestrated estate of Andrew Fitzjames Cunningham Rollo Bowman Ballantine, Esq., against Charles Reddie, writer in Glasgow. The defender had been factor and law-agent for the bankrupt from June 1868 till his sequestration in December 1872. The pursuer alleged that a balance of at least £6000 in favour of the estate would be brought out on a just accounting. The defender denied this averment and stated he was willing to account. Accounts were lodged by him under an order from the Lord Ordinary.
On 20th November 1877 Mr Ballantine was discharged from the sequestration, and thereafter sisted as pursuer of the action. On 8th January 1878 Lord Curriehill remitted the accounts to Ebenezer Erskine Scott, C.A., Edinburgh, to examine and report upon them.
Mr Scott completed his report in 1883, and delivered it to the pursuer's agents. The case, which had fallen asleep, was wakened on 27th February 1884, and the report allowed to be seen. It was lodged on 29th February 1884, without Mr Scott having obtained payment of his fee as reporter. Objections were lodged by the defender, and the case stood in the roll for discussion.
Mr Scott thereafter, not having obtained from the parties payment of his fee, enrolled the case, and moved the Lord Ordinary for decree against the parties to the action for the amount of his fee.
The Lord Ordinary (
“ Opinion.—My impression of the practice in cases of this kind is that decree is always given for the reporter's fee against the parties jointly and severally, leaving it to the reporter to recover one-half of the fee if he can from each party. In a recent case which went to the First Division I had found the parties liable jointly in payment of the reporter's fee, meaning in the special circumstances of that case that the liability was to be divided without relief; and the Lord President asked whether I meant the result to be as I have stated, or whether I meant only that the parties should be jointly responsible for the fee in the first instance. I understood from this that his Lordship considered that it was the ordinary practice to decern against the parties jointly and severally. With this recent case in view, I have no hesitation in finding the parties jointly and severally liable for the reporter's fee. With regard to the expenses of this application, I do not think that the reporter is entitled to them.”
Counsel for Pursuer— Jameson. Agents— J. A. Campbell & Lamond, C.S.
Counsel for Defender— Nevay. Agents— J. & R. A. Robertson, S.S.C.
Counsel for Accountant— Pearson. Agents— Morton, Neilson, & Smart, W.S.