M'Leod v. Tancred, Arrol, & Co.

Subject_1 Process Subject_2 Jurisdiction Subject_3 Proof, Facts: In an action of reparation raised in a Sheriff Court, the defenders pleaded “no jurisdiction.” The Sheriff-Substitute allowed the parties a proof of their averments, “reserving the question of jurisdiction to be tried along with the merits.” Upon the pursuer appealing for jury trial, the Court held that the procedure adopted was wrong, unless Page: 349 ↓

Thomas M'Leod, plater, Dunfermline, brought an action in the Sheriff Court there against Tancred, Arrol, & Company, Forth Bridge contractors, North Queens-ferry, to recover damages for injuries sustained while working in their employment on the said bridge, and alleged to be caused by their fault and negligence, or by the fault and negligence of those for whom they were responsible.

The Sheriff-Substitute ( Gillespie ) upon 14th January 1890 closed the record and allowed the parties a proof of their averments, “reserving the question of jurisdiction to be tried along with the merits.”

The pursuer appealed to the Second Division of the Court of Session for jury trial.

When the case was called the defenders again argued that they were not subject to the jurisdiction of the Sheriff of Fife and Kinross, that they had no place of business upon the north side of the Forth — only a pay-box—but that if that question could not be settled without proof, proof as to jurisdiction should have been taken before a proof on the merits was allowed.