Inverkip Parish Council v. Nairn Parish Council

In September 1908 the Parish Council of Inverkip raised an action against the Parish Council of Nairn, concluding for declarator that on 3rd January 1905, when Betsy M'Phee, thereafter an inmate of Smithston Asylum, Renfrewshire, became chargeable as a pauper to the parish of Inverkip, the parish of Nairn was her parish of settlement, and as such was liable to relieve the parish of Inverkip of all sums incurred on her account. Decree was also sought for £134, 13s. 4d., being the amount of advances already incurred on account of the pauper.

The pursuers pleaded, inter alia —“(2) The defenders' parish, as the parish of the birth settlement of the pauper, is liable to the pursuers in payment of the sums concluded for. (3) The said pauper having been forisfamiliated at the date of chargeability, and not having acquired a residential settlement in any parish, and the defenders' parish being the parish of the pauper's birth, the pursuers are entitled to declarator in terms of the declaratory conclusions of the summons with expenses.”

The defenders pleaded, inter alia—“(3) The legal settlement of the pauper lunatic not being the parish of Nairn, the defenders ought to be assoilzied with expenses.”

The facts are given in the opinion of the Lord Ordinary ( Skerrington ) who, on 20th January 1909, after a proof, pronounced this interlocutor—“Sustains the third plea-in-law stated for the defenders: Assoilzies them from the conclusions of the summons, and decerns: Finds the defenders entitled to expenses against the pursuers,” &c.

If it had not been for the fact that on January 3, 1905, the pauper was certified as a lunatic I should have held that her case was governed by the decisions in Cassells v. Somerville , 1885, 12 R. 1155 ; Nixon v. Rowand , 1887, 15 R. 191 ; Kirkintilloch Parish Council v. Eastwood Parish Council , 1902, 5 F. 274 , and Glasgow Parish Council v. Kilmalcolm Parish Council , 1904, 6 F. 457 , aff . 8 F. (H.L.) 12 . These cases Page: 55 ↓