Scottish Court of Session Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Gilchrist & Co. v. Smith [1901] ScotLR 38_238 (09 January 1901)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1901/38SLR0238.html
Cite as: [1901] ScotLR 38_238, [1901] SLR 38_238

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

SCOTTISH_SLR_Court_of_Session

Page: 238↓

Court of Session Inner House First Division.

[Sheriff Court at Ayr.

Wednesday, January 9. 1901.

38 SLR 238

Gilchrist & Company

v.

Smith.

Subject_1Expenses
Subject_2Appeal
Subject_3Withdrawal of Appeal
Subject_4Printing by Respondent.
Facts:

An appeal from a Sheriff Court was abandoned before the case appeared in the roll for discussion. The respondents asked for full expenses, and stated that they had printed a correspondence which had passed between the parties. This they had done without asking the appellant what he intended to print. The Court refused to allow more than the ordinary modified expenses of £3, 3s.

Headnote:

James Gilchrist & Company, salt merchants, Glasgow, brought an action in the Sheriff Court of Ayrshire at Ayr against Walter Smith, grain merchant, Irvine. On 19th March 1900 the Sheriff-Substitute ( Orr-Paterson) decerned against the defender for the sum sued for. On appeal the Sheriff ( Brand) adhered, and on 28th June 1900 the Sheriff-Substitute approved of the Auditor's report on expenses, and decerned against the defender therefor. On 12th July 1900, the defender appealed to the Court of Session, and on 16th October the case was sent to the Short Roll.

On January 9, 1901, before the case had been put out in the roll for hearing, the appellant moved that the appeal should
Page: 239↓
be dismissed, and that he should be found liable in £3, 3s. of modified expenses.

The respondents moved for full expenses, and stated that they had printed certain correspondence which had passed between the parties— Sligo v. Knox, November 2, 1880, 8 R. 41; Little Orme's Head Limestone Company v. Hendry & Company, November 25, 1897, 25 R. 124. They admitted that this correspondence had been printed without communicating with the appellant on the subject.

The appellant cited Robertson v. Robertson's Executors, November 8, 1899, 2 F. 77.

Judgment:

Lord President—It appears to me that no cause has been shown for departing from the ordinary rule in this case. If a respondent, who is not the party whose duty it is to print the papers, desires to do so at an early stage, he ought to communicate with the appellant and ascertain what he intends to print, otherwise the result will be—or in the ordinary course ought to be—that the appellant will at the proper time print the necessary papers, and there will be double and superfluous printing.

Lord Adam concurred.

Lord Kinnear—I quite agree, and think that if a respondent prints without notice and without inquiry he takes the risk of the prints turning out useless, and in that case he cannot recover the expense of printing useless prints from his opponent.

Lord M'Laren was absent.

The Court found the respondents entitled to £3, 3s. of expenses.

Counsel:

Counsel for Pursuers and Respondents— MacRobert. Agents— R. & R. Denholm & Kerr, S.S.C.

Counsel for the Defender and Appellant— D. Anderson. Agent— Henry Bower, S.S.C.
1901

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010