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 >> Bruce v. Ogilvy [1813] UKHL 1_Dow_38 (28 March 1813)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1813/1_Dow_38.html
Cite as: [1813] UKHL 1_Dow_38
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
SCOTTISH_HoL_JURY_COURT
Page: 38↓
(1813) 1 Dow 38
REPORTS OF APPEAL CASES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS During the Session, 1812–13. 53 Geo. III.
FROM SCOTLAND.
No. 4
v.
It was stated in the last case that the vessel called the Jenny and Peggy had been wrecked on the Shetland coast. The inhabitants of these islands had a peculiar notion of law in regard to wreck, whether derived from Norwegian tradition, or from whatever other source, Mr. Horner, who opened the case, did not know. They conceived that one-third belonged to the Admiral, one-third to the proprietor of the estate where the cargo was cast ashore, and the remaining one-third to those who could get it.
Certain persons who had acquired this last kind of right to a quantity of tallow which had formed part of the cargo of the Jenny and Peggy, sold it to Bruce and Ogilvy, the parties in this cause, who carried on trade in partnership, in some place in one of the Shetland islands, for 57 l. which was alleged to be far below its value.
Watt, the owner of the cargo, having discovered how it had been disposed of, brought his action for the spoliation, in the Admiral's Court, against ten defenders, of whom Bruce was one. The matter
Page: 39↓
The partnership of Bruce and Ogilvy having been dissolved, the latter brought his action against the former for two sums, amounting together to about 100 l. Bruce alleged that the compromise with Watt was on the partnership account, and that Ogilvy was liable to him for a third of the above sum, which he had paid to Watt, and which more than covered his debt to Ogilvy: he therefore pleaded compensation.—The Court of Session decided in favour of Ogilvy, the Pursuer, and Bruce appealed.
Ogilvy had alleged in the Court below, that he was no party to the compromise, and that it was not entered into on the partnership account. Bruce offered to prove that it was, and gave in a printed condescendance of the facts, which the Court must of course have thought not sufficient to make out his case, as they rejected the proof. A question had been raised whether the spoliation did not vitiate the whole transaction, but from the manner in which the action in the Admiral's Court terminated, no thing appeared to have turned upon that.
Judgment.