EDWARD RAILTON v ALEXANDER GRAY (Court of Session)

(There were allegations in the advocation to the effect that Pullman had assented to indorse the composition bills on account of misrepresentation; but these were not embraced by the present judgment of the Court.)

Lord Balgray .—Suppose Pullman had granted a discharge, could you say the Sheriff was not entitled to interfere? I cannot view the party who executed the poinding in any other light than the common mandatary of Pullman. It is impossible to consider him as an onerous assignee. He was not entitled to put the money in his own pocket.

On these grounds, the Court unanimously concurred in repelling the objection to the Sheriff's jurisdiction.

The Dean of Faculty having then proceeded to argue, that the allegations above alluded to were proved by the evidence in process, and Mr Keay having answered, it appeared to their Lordships that Pullman ought to be made a party to the proceedings, and the following interlocutor was accordingly pronounced:

‘The Lords repel the preliminary objection stated to the Sheriff's jurisdiction, and, before further answer, remit to the Lord Ordinary to allow Robert Pullman to be sisted as a party to this process, and thereafter to hear parties further; with power to his Lordship, if he shall see cause, to recall his former interlocutor reclaimed against, and to do in the cause as shall be just; and the Lords reserve all questions as to expenses.’