Manchester and Liverpool District Banking Co., Ltd v. Alexander Ferguson & Co. [1905] ScotLR 42_649 (28 June 1905)

Manchester and Liverpool District Banking Co., Ltd v. Alexander Ferguson & Co. [1905] ScotLR 42_649 (28 June 1905)

The defenders' averments of a verbal agreement making payment contingent on the raising of 'sufficient' working capital, without specification of amount or time, were too vague and indefinite to be relevant or to entitle them to proof under section 100 of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882.

Citation
[1905] ScotLR 42_649
Parties
Pursuer/respondent: Manchester and Liverpool District Banking Company, Limited; Defender/appellant: Alexander Ferguson & Company
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
28 June 1905
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session Inner House, Second Division
Outcome
appeal dismissed; interlocutor affirmed
Legal Topics
Bills of Exchange, Parole Evidence, Conditional Liability, Bills of Exchange Act 1882 Section 100
Commercial Law Banking Law Bills of Exchange Parole Evidence Conditional Liability Bills of Exchange Act 1882 Section 100

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Manchester and Liverpool District Banking Company, Limited

Pursuer/respondent

Alexander Ferguson & Company

Defender/appellant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a verbal agreement qualifying liability on a bill of exchange can be proved by parole evidence under section 100 of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882
  2. 2 Whether the defenders' averments were relevant and entitled to proof

Ratio Decidendi

The defenders' averments of a verbal agreement making payment contingent on the raising of 'sufficient' working capital, without specification of amount or time, were too vague and indefinite to be relevant or to entitle them to proof under section 100 of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; interlocutor affirmed

Orders

  • Defenders' averments repelled as irrelevant
  • Decree granted in favour of pursuers for the sum sued