Thomson v. Robertson [1900] ScotLR 38_3 (19 October 1900)

Thomson v. Robertson [1900] ScotLR 38_3 (19 October 1900)

Section 100 of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 does not make it competent to prove payment of sums due under a bill by parole; payment of sums less than £8, 6s. 8d. made in implement of an obligation constituted by writing cannot be proved by parole under Scots law.

Citation
[1900] ScotLR 38_3
Parties
Pursuer/respondent: Andrew Robertson; Defender/appellant: James Thomson
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
19 October 1900
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session Inner House
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Bills of Exchange, Proof of Payment, Parole Evidence, Written Obligations
Commercial Law Evidence Law Bills of Exchange Proof of Payment Parole Evidence Written Obligations

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Robertson

Pursuer/respondent

James Thomson

Defender/appellant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether payment of sums less than £8, 6s. 8d. in implement of an obligation constituted by writing can be proved by parole evidence under Scots law and section 100 of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882.

Ratio Decidendi

Section 100 of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 does not make it competent to prove payment of sums due under a bill by parole; payment of sums less than £8, 6s. 8d. made in implement of an obligation constituted by writing cannot be proved by parole under Scots law.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Defender's appeal dismissed.
  • Sheriff's interlocutor adhered to.