M'Lintook v. Prinzen & Van Glabbeek

Subject_1 Sheriff Subject_2 Extract Subject_3 Charge Subject_4 Decree ad factum prcestandum — Interlocutor not Specifying Time Within which Order to be Implemented — Warrant in Extract to Charge on Seven Days Induciæ — Diligence — Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Extracts Act 1892 (55 and 56 Vict. cap. 17), secs, 4 and 7 (2), and Schedule 12. Facts: An interlocutor pronounced by a sheriff ordained the defenders to consign a sum of money, but contained no mention of the time within which the order was to be implemented.

The extract decree proceeding on this interlocutor contained a warrant to charge on seven days induciæ , and a charge was given requiring consignation to be made within that time under the pain of imprisonment.

In a suspension of the charge brought on the ground that it was not conform to the interlocutor, in respect that the latter contained no mention of the time within which the order was to be implemented, held that, the decree being a decree ad factum prcestandum , it was competent under the provisions of the Page: 761 ↓

This was a note of suspension at the instance of M'Farlane & Company, produce importers and commission agents, Glasgow, and Thomas Bryce M'Lintock, sole partner of said company, as such partner and as an individual, complainers, against Prinzen & Van Glabbeek, margarine manufacturers, Helmond, Holland, and John Willocks, Glasgow, their mandatory, respondents.

On 5th June 1901 the respondents brought an action in the Sheriff Court at Glasgow against the complainers, in which they, inter alia , craved the Court to ordain the complainers, jointly and severally, to produce a full account of their intromissions as agents for the respondents, and to pay to them the sum of £1000, or such other sum as might appear to be the true balance due to them.