Martin (Robertson's Trustee) v. Riddell [1910] ScotLR 29 (05 November 1910)

Martin (Robertson's Trustee) v. Riddell [1910] ScotLR 29 (05 November 1910)

The assignation and accompanying letter were ambiguous as to whether Riddell took the policies as an individual or as agent for the bank. In such circumstances, parole evidence is admissible to clarify the true nature of the transaction. The Sheriffs were correct to allow proof pro ut de jure to determine the facts. The appeal was dismissed and the judgments affirmed.

Citation
[1910] ScotLR 29
Parties
Pursuer (appellant): William Martin, C.A., trustee for behoof of creditors of the estate of Alexander Robertson; Defender (respondent): James Riddell, Agent, Clydesdale Bank, Ltd., Leith Walk, Edinburgh
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
05 November 1910
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session Inner House
Outcome
appeal dismissed; judgments of Sheriffs affirmed
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Parole Evidence, Ambiguity in Written Documents, Assignation in Security, Agency, Trusts
Evidence Property Law Banking Law Admissibility of Parole Evidence Ambiguity in Written Documents Assignation in Security Agency Trusts

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Martin, C.A., trustee for behoof of creditors of the estate of Alexander Robertson

Pursuer (appellant)

James Riddell, Agent, Clydesdale Bank, Ltd., Leith Walk, Edinburgh

Defender (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session Inner House

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether parole evidence is admissible to explain or qualify an ambiguous written assignation and accompanying letter regarding security over life insurance policies.
  2. 2 Whether the assignation was in favour of Riddell as an individual or as agent for the Clydesdale Bank.
  3. 3 Whether Riddell is entitled to retain the policies until repayment of advances made on the faith of the assignation, regardless of whether advances were made personally or as agent.

Ratio Decidendi

The assignation and accompanying letter were ambiguous as to whether Riddell took the policies as an individual or as agent for the bank. In such circumstances, parole evidence is admissible to clarify the true nature of the transaction. The Sheriffs were correct to allow proof pro ut de jure to determine the facts. The appeal was dismissed and the judgments affirmed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; judgments of Sheriffs affirmed

Orders

  • Proof pro ut de jure allowed to determine whether assignation was to Riddell as agent or individual and to clarify advances made.