Taylor v. Nisbet [1901] ScotLR 39_83 (08 November 1901)

Taylor v. Nisbet [1901] ScotLR 39_83 (08 November 1901)

The Court held that the quinquennial prescription does not apply to a contract of deposit for safe keeping, that such a contract may be proved by parole evidence, and that once deposit is established, the onus is on the depositary to prove restoration. The defender failed to discharge this onus beyond the admitted repayment of £150, and thus remained liable for the balance.

Citation
[1901] ScotLR 39_83
Parties
Pursuer/respondent: Charles Taylor; Defender/appellant: Henry Nisbet
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
08 November 1901
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session, Inner House
Outcome
appeal dismissed; judgment for pursuer affirmed
Legal Topics
Deposit for Safe Keeping, Burden of Proof, Prescription (limitation), Competency of Parole Evidence, Onus of Proving Restoration
Contract Law Evidence Law Scots Law Deposit for Safe Keeping Burden of Proof Prescription (limitation) Competency of Parole Evidence Onus of Proving Restoration

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

Parties

Charles Taylor

Pursuer/respondent

Henry Nisbet

Defender/appellant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a contract of deposit for safe keeping of money can be proved by parole evidence or only by writ or oath under the Act 1669, cap. 9
  2. 2 Whether the quinquennial prescription applies to such a contract of deposit
  3. 3 On whom lies the onus of proving restoration of the deposit

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the quinquennial prescription does not apply to a contract of deposit for safe keeping, that such a contract may be proved by parole evidence, and that once deposit is established, the onus is on the depositary to prove restoration. The defender failed to discharge this onus beyond the admitted repayment of £150, and thus remained liable for the balance.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; judgment for pursuer affirmed

Orders

  • Defender to pay pursuer £125