INDEX OF STATUTES. 19 and 20 Vict. c. 60 (Mercantile Law Amend- 19 and 20 19 and 20 20 and 21 25 and 26 1808), p. 342 c. 151, p. 272 c. 120 (Judicature Act 1825), pp. 25 and 26 25 and 26 25 and 26 c. 69 (Night Poaching Act 1828), 2 and 3 Will. IV. c. 65 (Representation of the 1 Vict. c. 41 (Small Debt Act 1837), p. 589, 611 pp. 134, 492, 620 c. 19 (Lands Clauses Consoli- ... ... 25 and 26 25 and 26 27 and 28 ... Act c. 33 (Railways Clauses Con- 1845), p. 208 c. 83 (Poor Law Amendment c. 36 (Entail Amendment Act c. 36 (Court of Session Act c. 92 (Prevention of Cruelty to c. 93 (Burgh Harbours (Scot- c. 104 (Merchant Shipping Act c. 58 (Registration of Voters ment (Scotland) Act 1856), c. 79 (Bankruptcy Act 1856), C. 35 (Public-Houses Acts c. 97 (Salmon Fisheries (Scot- c. 53 (Summary Procedure c. 273 (Glasgow Police Act c. 101 (Public Health (Scot- c. 100 (Court of Session Act c. 42 (Citation Amendment c. 42 (Building Societies Act c. 94 (Conveyancing Act 1874) 44 and 45 Vict. c. 21 (Married Women's Pro- 45 and 46 45 and 46 45 and 46 46 and 47 46 and 47 ... ... 49 and 50 Vict. 49 and 50 ... c. 42 (Civil Imprisonment (Scot- C. 77 (Citation Amendment c. 62 (Agricultural Holdings 48 Vict. c. 16 (Registration Amendment (Scot- 50 and 51 50 and 51 51 and 52 52 and 53 52 and 53 52 and 53 54 and 55 54 and 55 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. Abandoned Appeal. See Process. Abandonment by not Proceeding to Trial within Abatement on £120 on Incomes under £400. See Acceptance. See Company -Process. Account-Current. See Prescription. Action for Custody of Bastard Child. See Parent Action Premature. See Process. Action of Damages. See Property. Action of Relief by One Insurer against Another. Acquiescence. See Contract. Administrator-in-Law. See Trust-Settlement. Admission to Poor's Roll Refused. See Poor's Roll. Admissibility. See Culpable Homicide. Affiliation and Aliment of Illegitimate Child. See Agent and Client-Employment-Privity of Con- pursuers declined to depart from the agreement, and held the defenders liable in damages for their breach of it. The pursuers further averred that at the defenders' request, in order to suit the requirements of the defenders' business, they had removed to a larger office at an increased rent, which had become unnecessary owing to the defenders' breach of the agreement, and for which therefore they inaintained, alternatively, the defenders were bound to recompense them. The Court dismissed the action as irrelevant, holding (1) that it was not a condition of the agreement founded on that the defenders should continue in the fancy leather trade for any particular time, and therefore that there had been no breach of contract; and (2) the risk of the defenders ceasing to continue in the business being under the agreement with the pursuers, the defenders were not liable for the increased rent of the pursuers' office upon the principle of recompense. Patmore & Company v. B. Cannon & Company, Limited, p. 883. Agent-Disburser. See Expenses. Agreement to Insure. See Insurance. Aliment-Arrears of Aliment-Imprisonment for Non-Payment-Civil Imprisonment (Scotland) Act (45 and 46 Vict. c. 42), sec. 4. Held that it is competent for a Sheriff to grant warrant of imprisonment against a person who has failed to pay arrears of aliment. Observations upon the case of Tevendale v. Duncan, March 20, 1883, 10 R. 852. Cain v. M'Colm, p. 735. jections to the competency of the petition. Marquess of Stafford v. Duke of Sutherland, p. 432. Appeal to the House of Lords. See Process. Application for Sist. See Process. Appointment-Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1889 (52 and 53 Vict. c. 20), sec. 2, subsec. (3) Appointment of Referee by Sheriff within Fourteen Days of Application-Competency of Appointment upon Second Application where First Refused. Held that a Sheriff who had refused to appoint a referee on the ground that more than fourteen days had been allowed to elapse since the application, was not barred from making such an appointment upon a new application duly proceeded with. Sinclair v. Brown, p. 652. Appointment of Judicial Factor. See Trust. Appointment of Referee by Sheriff within Fourteen Days of Application. See Appointment. Arbiter. See Landlord and Tenant. Arbitration-Reference Clause in Agreement— Exclusion of Action. An iron company agreed to lease some of their ground for the erection of chemical works. The agreement contained a stipulation that "any disputes arising in regard to the import and effect of any clause in this agreement, or as to the obligations and rights of either party under the same, or as to the mode of carrying the same into effect," should be submitted to the amicable decision of M, and that in the event of any question to be decided by the arbiter involving a disputed interpretation of the agreement, "or of any subsidiary arrangement made by the parties for carrying the same into effect," the arbiter might be required to consult counsel. The iron company raised an action against their lessees for payment of a sum which they alleged to be due to them as the cost of removing and reerecting certain of their workshops under a clause in the agreement which provided that where it became necessary for the pursuers to remove any of their workshops in order to furnish the ground required for the defenders' works, the defenders should bear the cost of removing and re-erecting the same. The defenders disputed the accuracy of the pursuers' claim; and further, founding upon a clause in the agreement which provided that the pursuers should supply the defenders with pit water for their works, and that the defenders should provide the pipes for carrying such water to their works, they averred that when the agreement was entered into it was understood that the mode of carrying the same into effect was to be by giving a permanent supply from the H pit, but that the pursuers having ceased to work that pit had offered them a new supply from another pit some distance off, and that they were entitled to be reimbursed for the expense incurred by them in connecting their works with the new supply. They pleaded that the action was excluded by the clause of reference in the agreement. Held (1) that as far as regarded the pursuers' claim, the subjects of dispute fell within the reference clause of the agreement; but (2) that as regarded the defenders' counter claim they did not, that claim being founded, not upon the agreement, but upon an understanding collateral thereto. Shotts Iron Company v. Dempsters, p. 40. Arbitration-Reference-Exclusion of Ordinary Action-Process-Pleading-Denial of Claim on Record-Extrajudicial Admission-Proof. A contractor entered into an agreement with a tramways company to work and horse their cars, under which he was to be paid at a certain rate per mile for the distance covered. The agreement contained a clause appointing A, whom failing B, as sole arbiter for the amicable adjustment and determination of all questions and differences which might arise between the parties as to the true import and meaning of the agreement, or as regarded the implementing or failure to implement the same or any clause thereof, and generally for the settlement of all questions of what nature soever which should or might arise out of, or be in any way connected with, the said agreement, including all pecuniary claims by one party against the other. After the termination of the agreement the contractor raised an action against the company for a sum which he averred to be the amount due to him for work done under the agreement during the last month preceding its termination, "conform to statement thereof prepared by the defenders, and letter from the defenders' secretary sending said statement to the pursuer, and admitting the correctness of the amount sued for." The defenders met this averment by a simple denial, and also made certain counter-claims of damages in connection with the work done by the pursuer under the contract. The letter from the defenders' secretary to the pursuer, which was produced by the pursuer and admitted by the defenders to be genuine, bore that "the usual statement of account" was therewith sent, the sum brought out being exactly the sum claimed by the pursuer. The defenders pleaded that the action was excluded by the reference clause of the agreement. Held (1) that in face of the defenders' denial of the pursuer's claim on record, the claim could not be held as admitted, or as proved by the admissions contained in the letter of the defenders' secretary; and (2) that the question raised thereby and by the counter-claims of the defenders were matters to be disposed of by the arbiter nominated in the agreement; and action dismissed. Wright v. Greenock and Port-Glasgow Tramways Company, p. 53. Question to be Decided by Arbiter in terms of Statute-Exclusion of Ordinary Action. The Glasgow Central Railway Act 1888, passed for the purpose of permitting the Caledonian Railway Company, inter alia, to construct a railway under a part of Glasgow, provided in section 39 that the company should not at any one time be entitled to enclose for the construction of the railway a greater extent of the surface of Argyle Street than 50 fect long by 17 feet wide with intervals of not less than 200 yards between such enclosure. The Act further provided in section 41, that if the railway company and the Glasgow Corporation should differ as to any of the provisions of that or the two preceding sections, such differences should be referred to the determination of an arbiter, to be mutually agreed upon by the company and the corporation. A dispute having arisen between the company and the corporation as to whether the former were entitled to occupy a greater extent of the street than that specified in section 39 of the Act by covering it with materials, &c., beyond the enclosures-held that such a dispute was, in terms of section 41 of the Act, a difference to be determined by the arbiter, and that the Court had no jurisdiction in the matter. Magistrates of Glasgow v. Caledonian Railway Company, p. 769. Arrears of Aliment. See Aliment. Arrestment jurisdictionis fundandæ causa-Jurisdiction-Foreigner. A firm of shipping agents in Leith acted as agents for the owners of a ship (one of whom was a foreigner) down to 1st May 1891, on which date the ship was sold. Although there was no settlement between the parties till 12th August, it appeared from the books of the Leith agents, and the evidence of one of the partners of the firm, that on 1st May there was a small balance due to them by the owners of the ship. Held that the Court had no jurisdiction over the foreigner by reason of arrestments ad fundandam jurisdictionem used against him in the hands of the shipping agents on 3rd June. Napier, Shanks, & Bell v. Halvorsen, p. 343. Articles of Association. Assessment. See Burgh. Assignation-Foreign. See Company. A domiciled Irishman insured his life with a Scottish life insurance company. He then deposited the policy with a creditor, also a domiciled Irishman, in security of debt. Subsequently he executed in Ireland an assignation of the policy in favour of another creditor, also a domiciled Irishman, and this assignation was intimated to the company, who had at that time no knowledge of the deposit of the policy. The assignee at the time he took the assignation knew that the policy had been deposited with the first creditor. The insured died, and a competition took place for the contents of the policy in the Courts of Scotland between the depositary and the assignee. Held that the validity of the transference must be determined by the law of that contract, i.e., by the law of Ireland, and after admission as to that law, that the depositary must be preferred. The Scottish Provident Institution v. W. A. Robinson & Newett and Another, p. 733. See Writ. |