Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions >> George Jones, Proprietor and Manager of the Amphitheatres of Edinburgh and Glasgow v. Messrs. Lindsay & Co., Wood-merchats in Glasgow [1797] UKHL 3_Paton_563 (17 June 1797)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1797/3_Paton_563.html
Cite as: [1797] UKHL 3_Paton_563
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
SCOTTISH_HoL_JURY_COURT
Page: 563↓
(1797) 3 Paton 563
CASES DECIDED IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS, UPON APPEAL FROM THE COURTS OF SCOTLAND.
No. 104
v.
House of Lords,
Subject_Building Contract — Non-Fulfilment. —
A written contract for building a circus, to be finished and ready for opening on the 11th November 1792, under a penalty of £500, was entered into:— Held it not a breach of this contract entitling the party to damages, that the circus was not finished for five or six weeks later than the time stipulated.
This was an action raised before the Magistrates of Glasgow, by the respondents against the appellant for payment of the balance due on a building contract, for building an amphitheatre in Glasgow, to which the appellant stated the defence of breach of contract, in respect that, by the contract, the respondents had become bound, under a penalty of £500, to finish the said building by the term of Martinmas (11th November 1792). That the same was not completed until Christmas following, while great expense, loss, and damage was thereby occasioned to the appellant, from entering
Page: 564↓
Nov. 28, 1794.
The Sheriff found, “that although it was proved that the respondents were five or six weeks later of finishing the work which they contracted with the defender (appellant), to complete at Martinmas 1792, yet, that he had adduced no proof that the ultimate finishing of the circus was retarded, or that the alleged delay of opening it was owing to the delay of the pursuers in implementing their contract.”
This decree being extracted, a suspension was brought to the Court of Session.
May 21, 1795.
July 6, —
Feb. 13, 1796.
The Lord Ordinary refused the bill; and, upon reclaiming petition, the Court adhered. And, on further petition, they adhered.
Against these interlocutors the present appeal was brought.
After hearing counsel, it was
Ordered and adjudged that the appeal be dismissed, and that the interlocutors be affirmed: And it is farther ordered, that the appellant do pay, or cause to be paid, to the respondents £100 for costs, in respect of the said appeal.
Counsel: For Appellant,
Wm. Adam,
Tho. M'Donald,
H. D. Inglis.
For Respondents,
Sir J. Scott,
Robt. Davidson.