Scottish Court of Session Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Linton and Others v. The City of Glasgow Friendly Society [1895] ScotLR 33_42_1 (30 October 1895)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1895/33SLR0042_1.html
Cite as: [1895] ScotLR 33_42_1, [1895] SLR 33_42_1

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

SCOTTISH_SLR_Court_of_Session

Page: 42↓

Court of Session Inner House First Division.

Sheriff-Substitute of Renfrewshire.

Wednesday, October 30 1895.

33 SLR 42_1

Linton and Others

v.

The City of Glasgow Friendly Society.

Subject_1Friendly Society
Subject_2Process
Subject_3Settlement of Disputes between Society and Members
Subject_4Friendly Societies Act 1875 (38 and 39 Vict. c. 60), sec. 22.
Facts:

Section 22 of the Friendly Societies Act 1875 provides that, where the rules of the society contain no directions for the settlement of disputes between the society and its members, any member aggrieved may apply to a court of summary jurisdiction. Sub-Section ( e) of the same section further provides that the court may, at the request of either party, state a case for the opinion of either Division of the Inner House on any question of law.

Held that this method of appeal was competent in the case of small-debt
Page: 43↓
decrees in the Sheriff Court dealing with such disputes, notwithstanding the general exclusion of appeals in small—debt actions, except in the manner provided by sec. 31 of the Small Debt Act 1837.

Headnote:

Section 22 of the Friendly Societies Act 1875 (38 and 39 Vict. c. 60) provides that every dispute between a member, or person claiming through a member, and the society shall be decided in manner directed by the rules of the society, and the decision so made shall be binding and conclusive on all parties without appeal, and shall not be removable into any court of law or restrain-able by injunction. This enactment is subject, inter alia, to the following provisions :—( a) The parties to a dispute in a society (or branch) may, by consent (unless the rules of such society or branch expressly forbid it), refer such dispute to the chief registrar, … who shall hear and determine such dispute…. ( d) Where the rules contain no directions as to disputes, or where no decision is made on a dispute within forty days after application to the society (or branch) for a reference under its rules, the member or person aggrieved may apply either to the county court or to a court of summary jurisdiction, which may hear and determine the matter in dispute. ( e) The court, chief or other registrar, may, at the request of either party, state a case for the opinion in England of the Supreme Court of Judicature, in Scotland of either Division of the Inner House of the Court of Session, or in Ireland of one of the Superior Courts of common law at Dublin, on any question of law.” …

An action in ordinary form, and not bearing to be under the Friendly Societies Acts, was raised in the Small Debt Court at Paisley by Mrs Janet Linton, Paisley, and others, against the City of Glasgow Friendly Society, 6 Richmond Street, Glasgow. The pursuers claimed the sum of £6, 18s in respect of the death of Mrs Margaret Linton, whose life was insured with the defenders, and who died in August 1895. The defenders disputed that this amount was due.

The Sheriff having decerned in favour of the pursuers, the defenders called upon him to state a case for the opinion of the First Division of the Court of Session, in accordance with sec. 22, sub-sec. ( e), above quoted.

The Sheriff accordingly stated a case, in which, after narrating the circumstances, he submitted the question whether his decision was right in law. The pursuer objected to the competency of an appeal in this form, and argued that the action having been raised as an ordinary action in the Small Debt Court, and not being founded on the Friendly Societies Act, the only competent method of appeal was that applicable to all small-debt actions under sec. 31 of the Small Debt Act of 1837.

At advising—

Judgment:

Lord President—I think this appeal is competent. As I read the section of the Friendly Societies Act, if the parties agree to do so, and unless the rules of the society forbid it, they may refer their dispute to the chief registrar, and, failing such agreement, they may bring their action in any court of summary jurisdiction. In short, it appears to me that the emphasis in sub-section ( d) is to be laid upon the word “summary.” Accordingly, I think that the action was brought in the Small Debt Court in conformity with the regulations of the Friendly Societies Act, and an appeal from it may be taken on a case stated in the manner provided by that Act.

Lord Adam—I concur. A special procedure has been provided in the Friendly Societies Act to regulate appeals. If the sum in question is above £25, there is no question that the parties can come here on a case stated, and I cannot see that the procedure provided by the Act is limited to cases where the sum is above that amount, when there is nothing to that effect contained in the Act.

Lord Kinnear—I am of the same opinion. A special procedure is provided by the Friendly Societies Act to regulate appeals. It is no answer to the appellant's claim to have the benefit of such procedure, to say that under the Small Debt Act he would have had a different right of appeal, and not that which he claims under the Friendly Societies Act. There is nothing to take this case out of the jurisdiction of the Court to which such cases have been specially assigned. The only point raised against the competency of the case stated is, that the action in the Sheriff Court was not founded upon the terms of the Friendly Societies Act, and did not set forth that it was brought in accordance with the procedure prescribed therein. But the claim, as set forth in the case, makes it clear that the question brought before the Court is a dispute between a friendly society and one of its members, for the determination of which the Act has provided a special procedure with a restricted right of appeal.

Lord M'Laren was absent.

The Court repelled the objection to the competency of the appeal.

Counsel:

Counsel for the Appellants— W. Campbell. Agents— Simpson & Marwick, W.S.

Counsel for the Respondent— Hunter. Agent— John Baird, Solicitor.
1895