Young & c. vs. Hermand Oil Co. Ltd., 1890

OUTER HOUSE – SATURDAY , March 1. (Before Lord KINNEAR.)

YOUNG, &C., v. THE HERMAND OIL COMPANY.

Lord Kinnear closed the record in an action at the instance of William Young, consulting chemist, residing at Priorford, Peebles, and George Thomas Beilby, chemist, residing at St Kitts, Slateford, against the Hermand Oil Company, Limited, having its registered office at 6 Shandwick Place, Edinburgh.

The action is brought in the form of a claim for count and reckoning, but is understood to raise the question of validity of patents which pursuers hold relating to the distillation of shale. Pursuers sue for count and reckoning with reference to the quantity of shale distilled or manufactured by the defenders in apparatus or retorts made or worked according to the principles of the inventions set forth in letters patent, or for payment of £1000.

Defenders, it is stated, hold licenses from pursuers for the working of these patents, and the license requires that within ten days after 31st December in each year defenders should give pursuers a statement in writing showing the number of apparatus worked, or capable of being worked, and the number of tons of shale with which the apparatus was charged.

Between March,1886, and May, 1889, defenders were required to pay a royalty of 1½d per ton, and thereafter by a new agreement a royalty of 2d per ton. Pursuers further allege that the annual statement is erroneous in respect that defenders have a number of the patent retorts working beside the 120 mentioned in the statement, and upon the shale distilled in which they should have paid the royalty.

In reply, defenders deny this allegation, and plead, among other things, that pursuers’ statements are irrelevant, wanting in specification, and unfounded in fact. Counsel for Pursuers – Mr Daniell. Agents – Smith & Mason, S.S.C. Counsel for Defenders – Mr Dickson, Agents – Drummond & Reid, W.S.

Glasgow Herald, 3rd March 1890

.......

Dispute as to the Manufacture of Shale.

Lord Kinnear, of the Court of Session, yesterday issued an interlocutor in an action instituted by William Young, consulting chemist, Priorsford, Peebles, and George Thomas Beilby. Consulting chemist, Saint Kitts, Slateford, against the Hermand Oil Company, Limited, 6 Shandwick Place, Edinburgh, to have the defenders ordained to account for the number of tons of shale distilled or manufactured by them in apparatus or retorts made or worked according to the principles of the inventions of which the pursuers set forth in letters patent, of which the defenders are licensees of the pursuers. Failing an accounting payment £1000 was sought.

A royalty of 1½d per ton is paid by the defenders, and, though in their annual statement for the year ended December 1889 the defenders said they had 120 shale retorts worked or capable of being worked according to the principles of the inventions, the pursuers averred that it had come to their knowledge that the defenders have a further number of retorts worked or capable of being worked which the defenders ought to have in the statement. The defence was that the retorts in question are not such as binds them to pay in respect of the shale distilled in them under license. Proof, which lasted for six days, was led in July last, and his Lordship has now issued formal interlocutor in which he assoilzies the defenders, and finds them entitled to expenses.

Dundee Advertiser, 23rd August 1890