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 >> Mr James Philp v Captain David Collins and William Sprot. [1781] Hailes 883 (20 February 1781)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1781/Hailes020883-0559.html
Cite as: [1781] Hailes 883

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


[1781] Hailes 883      

Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR DAVID DALRYMPLE, LORD HAILES.
Subject_2 JURISDICTION.
Subject_3 Nomination of Procurators in the Admiralty Court.

Mr James Philp
v.
Captain David Collins and William Sprot

Date: 20 February 1781

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

[Dictionary, 7451.]

President. Much is said in this petition not to the cause. As to jurisdiction, there must be a supereminent power somewhere for removing obstructions in the way of justice. The Court of Session has that power over every civil court. Suppose there were no Magistrates in a royal burgh, who is there that doubts of the power of the Court of Session to name persons for discharging the duties of Magistrates? Even in the nomination of officers whose commissions flow from the Crown, such as Sheriffs, the Court of Session has a like power. In cases of necessity, it might name a Judge-admiral. All courts have the power of naming procurators; but, if they should wantonly refuse, the Court of Session would interfere for the furtherance of justice. It did this in the case of Mr John Bushby, who had been denied admission as a procurator in the Sheriff-court of Dumfries. Wherever there is a wrong, there must be a remedy, and that remedy, in civil cases, must be in this Court; for where else can it be? So the question is, Whether is there a wrong here? The Act 1681 is nothing: it is out of the question. This is not a judgment as to a maritime cause; it is merely a question as to the manner of expediting jurisdiction. There are only three procurators at present. This Court does not say that there ought to be more, but only that a fourth procurator shall appear in a case of necessity. The impropriety of having only three procurators is obvious, when there are four parties appearing upon adverse interests.

On the 20th February 1781, “The Lords remitted the cause to the Judgeadmiral, with this instruction, that he, without delay, admit William Sprot to act as procurator for Captain Collins in this cause, reserving to the said William Sprot to apply to the Judge-admiral to be admitted one of the ordinary procurators before the Admiral-court, and with liberty to him, if refused, to apply to the Court of Session for redress.”

Act. A. Crosbie. Alt. R. Blair. Reporter, Gardenston.

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/1781/Hailes020883-0559.html