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 >> David Pattillo, Suspender v Sir William Maxwell and Others [1766] Hailes 837 (25 June 1779)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1766/Hailes020837-0519.html
Cite as: [1766] Hailes 837

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


[1766] Hailes 837      

Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR DAVID DALRYMPLE, LORD HAILES.
Subject_2 JURISDICTION.
Subject_3 Power of Review inherent in the Court of Session not excluded by the Comprehending Act.

David Pattillo, Suspender
v.
Sir William Maxwell and Others

Date: 25 June 1779

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

[Dictionary, 7386.]

Covington. The commissioners do not specify the grounds of their sentence.

Hailes. I formerly doubted, and I still doubt of that incontrollable Parliamentary power vested in the commissioners; but although we should hold that, in matters of opinion, their judgment cannot be reviewed, yet in matters of mathematical demonstration it may: and if they choose to find that a person falls under the statute, who demonstratively does not, I cannot suppose that they act under the statute,—their decree cannot make a man taller or younger than the statute requires.

Gardenston. Approved of the distinction between judgments in matters of opinion and judgments in matters of demonstration.

Justice-Clerk. The suspender must show that he does not fall under the statute.

President. It is dangerous to limit legal remedies: he who applies by suspension, must verify his reasons; but he cannot verify them while he remains a prisoner.

On the 25th June 1779, “The Lords remitted to the Lord Ordinary to pass the bill;” altering Lord Ankerville's interlocutor.

Act. A. Crosbie. Alt. J. M'Laurin.

N. B.—Lord Ankerville gave judgment, contrary to his own opinion, in consequence of what he understood to have been the sense of the Court in other cases.

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/1766/Hailes020837-0519.html