 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Mackay v. M'culloch [1867] ScotLR 3_223_1 (16 February 1867) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1867/03SLR0223_1.html Cite as: [1867] ScotLR 3_223_1, [1867] SLR 3_223_1 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 223↓
A reclaiming note against an interlocutor refusing a note of suspension must be marked as lodged by the clerk to the process within fourteen days.
This was a reclaiming note against an interlocutor pronounced in the Bill Chamber refusing a note of suspension. It had been boxed and marked as boxed within the reclaiming days, but it was not presented to the clerk of the process to be marked as lodged until after they had expired. The clerk having refused to receive it,
W. N. M‘Laren, for the reclaimer, moved the Court to allow it to be received.
MacLean, for the respondent, objected.
The Act of Sederunt 24th Dec. 1838, sec. 5, provides, in regard to reclaiming notes of the kind in question, that they “shall be intimated to the agent of the opposite party and clerk of the bills, and in time of session be duly marked and boxed within fourteen days from the date of the interlocutor reclaimed against.”
The Court had no doubt that the marking referred to in the Act of Sederunt was the marking by the clerk to the process, and that the marking by the boxing clerk did not satisfy the provision. They therefore refused to write on the reclaiming note.
Agent for Reclaimer— J. M. Macqueen, S.S.C.
Agent for Respondent— John Ross, S.S.C.