If you found BAILII useful today, could you please make a contribution?

Your donation will help us maintain and extend our databases of legal information. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month donates, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.

Thank you very much for your support!


BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Scottish Court of Session Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Stewart and Others v Bothwell. [1742] Mor 7337 (26 February 1742)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1742/Mor1807337-071.html
Cite as: [1742] Mor 7337

[New search] [View without highlighting] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


[1742] Mor 7337      

Subject_1 JURISDICTION.
Subject_2 DIVISION IV.

Jurisdiction of the Court of Session.
Subject_3 SECT. I.

To what Causes this Jurisdiction extends.

Stewart and Others
v.
Bothwell

Date: 26 February 1742
Case No. No 71.

The jurisdiction of the Court of Session does not extend to sums to be accounted for in another court.


Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy

Certain tradesmen having been employed in the years 1731 and 1732 by the Earl of Lauderdale and Mr Bruce, then General and Master of the Mint, to make pretty considerable repairs, a process was brought against the Lord Belhaven and Archibald Bothwell their successors, for payment of the accounts, as those in whose hands the public money was impressed for defraying the charges of the Mint, and which charges were alleged to be a burden, affecting not only the monies impressed for that year, in which such charges occurred, but also for subsequent years.

Some years ago the Lords had repelled the objection then made by Lord Belhaven to the competency of the Court, and sustained action; after which the cause went on, and the pursuers were allowed a proof of the articles of their accounts before answer: But application being now made for Archibald Bothwell, who had not before appeared, the Lords'sustained the objection to the competency, and found that the act of sederunt concerning, reclaiming bills did not take place in questions touching the jurisdiction of the Court; and therefore dismissed the action, leaving the pursuers to seek their remedy as accords.'

N. B.—The remedy with respect to the present officers of the Mint, was thought to be no other than an application to the Treasury, that being the Court to which only they were to account. That the employers qua such were liable there was no doubt.

Fol. Dic. v. 3. p. 341. Kilkerran, (Jurisdiction.) No 3. p. 316.

The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting     


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1742/Mor1807337-071.html