Anderson v. Dick [1901] ScotLR 39_42 (05 November 1901)

Anderson v. Dick [1901] ScotLR 39_42 (05 November 1901)

The letters of 12th and 13th April 1901 constituted a binding agreement for compromise of the action, and the absence of holograph or tested writings, or a joint minute, did not invalidate the settlement; the reclaiming-note should be refused.

Citation
[1901] ScotLR 39_42
Parties
Pursuer and Reclaimer: James Anderson; Defender and Respondent: William Riddell Dick; Defenders and Respondents: Mrs Thomson's Trustees
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
05 November 1901
Procedural Posture
Civil Action for Reduction and Declarator / Reclaiming Note After Assoilziment in Outer House
Outcome
reclaiming-note refused; settlement binding
Legal Topics
Compromise of Action, Settlement by Informal Writings, Locus Pœnitentiae, Binding Nature of Agent Correspondence
Contract Law Property Law Civil Procedure Compromise of Action Settlement by Informal Writings Locus Pœnitentiae Binding Nature of Agent Correspondence

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Anderson

Pursuer and Reclaimer

William Riddell Dick

Defender and Respondent

Mrs Thomson's Trustees

Defenders and Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Action for Reduction and Declarator / Reclaiming Note After Assoilziment in Outer House

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a compromise of action is binding when confirmed by informal writings between agents
  2. 2 Whether such writings must be holograph or tested to bind parties in matters relating to heritage
  3. 3 Whether ambiguity or lack of joint minute affects enforceability of settlement

Ratio Decidendi

The letters of 12th and 13th April 1901 constituted a binding agreement for compromise of the action, and the absence of holograph or tested writings, or a joint minute, did not invalidate the settlement; the reclaiming-note should be refused.

Court Disposition

reclaiming-note refused; settlement binding

Orders

  • Refuse the reclaiming-note
  • Decern