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 >> Grizel Bartholomew v Peter Chalmers. [1778] Hailes 785 (10 February 1778)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1778/Hailes020785-0477.html
Cite as: [1778] Hailes 785

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


[1778] Hailes 785      

Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR DAVID DALRYMPLE, LORD HAILES.
Subject_2 JURISDICTION.
Subject_3 Jurisdiction of the Admiral-court.

Grizel Bartholomew
v.
Peter Chalmers

Date: 10 February 1778

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

[Fac. Coll., VIII. 25; Dict. 7521.]

Kaimes. The cause is competent before the Admiral, for it is mercantile, but it is not a maritime cause, so as to authorise the Judge-admiral to require caution judicatum solvi.

Hailes. The jurisdiction of the Admiral, extended by the Act 1681 to increase the power of the Duke of York, while the Court of Session was diminished, has, by some strange accident, been extended still more by practice. It is in vain to look back: things settled ought not to be moved. But, as to the interpretation of the words “maritime and sea-faring causes," we have no practice to prevent us from inquiring into their proper signification. The epithet sea-faring is uncouth, and oddly applied; yet I cannot suppose that it is applicable to the persons who are sea-faring:—that would enlarge the original jurisdiction of the admiral beyond all reasonable bounds. The word, therefore, must be understood of causes; and, in that view, I cannot see how this should be a seafaring cause,—it relates to the private property, or venture, of a sea-captain, begun to be intromitted with on shipboard—continued to be intromitted with at land—the subjects sold, converted into other goods, and shipped. At the same time, I doubt how far the defender can profit by his plea against caution judicatum solvi in the Admiral-court; for he seems so unwilling to come to a clearance, and to be of so uncertain residence, that I think he might, ex nobili officio, be obliged to find caution in this Court judicatum solvi.

Gardenston. One of the first causes I was concerned in was before Lord Arniston,—very like this. He heard me with great patience, and then at once gave the cause against me,—pronouncing it to be maritime.

Braxfield. The Admiral-court is competent here, but not privative in the first instance. The cause is mercantile: the admiral has gone too far.

On the 10th February 1778, “The Lords found, That this was not a maritime cause in which the Admiral can demand caution judicatum solvi, advocated the cause, and remitted to the Ordinary;” altering Lord Gardenston's interlocutor.

Act. Claud Boswell. Alt. W. Robertson.

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/1778/Hailes020785-0477.html