Glen v. Semple [1901] ScotLR 38_844 (18 July 1901)

Glen v. Semple [1901] ScotLR 38_844 (18 July 1901)

The words 'against cheque' do not, on their face, constitute a condition rendering the cheque non-negotiable or indicate an intention that it should not be transferable within the meaning of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882. There is no sufficient evidence that the pursuer, as holder in due course, had knowledge of any special condition barring recovery. The defender is liable to pay the sum on the cheque.

Citation
[1901] ScotLR 38_844
Parties
Pursuer/appellant: Hugh Glen; Defender/respondent: Thomas Semple
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
18 July 1901
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff Substitute to Inner House, Court of Session
Outcome
appeal allowed; interlocutor of Sheriff-Substitute recalled; decree granted for pursuer
Legal Topics
Bills of Exchange, Cheques, Negotiability, Holder in Due Course, Conditional Instruments
Commercial Law Banking Law Bills of Exchange Cheques Negotiability Holder in Due Course Conditional Instruments

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hugh Glen

Pursuer/appellant

Thomas Semple

Defender/respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the words 'against cheque' on a cheque render it non-negotiable or conditional within the meaning of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882.
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer as holder in due course is barred from recovery due to knowledge of any condition attached to the cheque.

Ratio Decidendi

The words 'against cheque' do not, on their face, constitute a condition rendering the cheque non-negotiable or indicate an intention that it should not be transferable within the meaning of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882. There is no sufficient evidence that the pursuer, as holder in due course, had knowledge of any special condition barring recovery. The defender is liable to pay the sum on the cheque.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; interlocutor of Sheriff-Substitute recalled; decree granted for pursuer

Orders

  • Defender ordained to pay pursuer £400 with interest at 5% per annum from 27 November 1899 until payment.
  • Defender to pay pursuer's expenses.