Bishop v. Bryce [1910] ScotLR 317 (25 January 1910)

Bishop v. Bryce [1910] ScotLR 317 (25 January 1910)

The IOU was discharged by the issue of shares to the pursuer, as evidenced by both parties' conduct and the pursuer's own admissions. Parole evidence was admissible to show the true nature of the transaction, and the pursuer failed to prove the IOU was intended as a guarantee. The defender was entitled to have the IOU delivered up and to be assoilzied from the action.

Citation
[1910] ScotLR 317
Parties
Pursuer/respondent: William Bishop; Defender/appellant: David Bryce
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
25 January 1910
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Sheriff Principal to Court of Session Inner House, First Division
Outcome
Appeal sustained; interlocutor of the Sheriff-Principal recalled; interlocutor of the Sheriff-Substitute affirmed; action dismissed against defender.
Legal Topics
IOU, Loan, Discharge of Debt, Parole Evidence, Proof of Payment, Guarantee, Company Shares
Contract Law Commercial Law Evidence IOU Loan Discharge of Debt Parole Evidence Proof of Payment +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Bishop

Pursuer/respondent

David Bryce

Defender/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal From Sheriff Principal to Court of Session Inner House, First Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the IOU constituted a continuing debt or was discharged by the issue of shares
  2. 2 Whether parole evidence is admissible to prove discharge of a written obligation
  3. 3 Whether the IOU could be construed as a guarantee against loss on shares

Ratio Decidendi

The IOU was discharged by the issue of shares to the pursuer, as evidenced by both parties' conduct and the pursuer's own admissions. Parole evidence was admissible to show the true nature of the transaction, and the pursuer failed to prove the IOU was intended as a guarantee. The defender was entitled to have the IOU delivered up and to be assoilzied from the action.

Court Disposition

Appeal sustained; interlocutor of the Sheriff-Principal recalled; interlocutor of the Sheriff-Substitute affirmed; action dismissed against defender.

Orders

  • Pursuer to deliver up to defender the IOU for £300 dated 11th July 1895.
  • Defender assoilzied from the conclusions of the action.