Scott v. Davidson [1914] ScotLR 708 (11 June 1914)

Scott v. Davidson [1914] ScotLR 708 (11 June 1914)

The complainer failed to prove she was a cautioner or that the security was created for her benefit. As a co-obligant, she had no title to challenge the adequacy of the sale price of the security subjects, and the creditor was not a trustee for her in the realisation of the security. The proceeds received were properly brought into account, and no further claim could be made by the complainer.

Citation
[1914] ScotLR 708
Parties
Complainer and Reclaimer: Miss Jessie Scott; Respondent: Donald Davidson
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
11 June 1914
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor Refusing Suspension of Charge
Outcome
appeal dismissed; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary affirmed
Legal Topics
Promissory Note Liability, Security Over Heritable Property, Rights of Co Obligants, Challenge to Sale of Security, Adequacy of Price in Realisation of Security
Property Law Commercial Law Security Rights Promissory Note Liability Security Over Heritable Property Rights of Co Obligants Challenge to Sale of Security Adequacy of Price in Realisation of Security

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Miss Jessie Scott

Complainer and Reclaimer

Donald Davidson

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor Refusing Suspension of Charge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a co-obligant (not a cautioner) under a promissory note has title to challenge the sale of security subjects on grounds of inadequacy of price
  2. 2 Whether the complainer was a cautioner or principal obligant under the promissory note
  3. 3 Whether the creditor or assignee owed a duty to the complainer regarding the adequacy of the sale price of the security subjects

Ratio Decidendi

The complainer failed to prove she was a cautioner or that the security was created for her benefit. As a co-obligant, she had no title to challenge the adequacy of the sale price of the security subjects, and the creditor was not a trustee for her in the realisation of the security. The proceeds received were properly brought into account, and no further claim could be made by the complainer.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary affirmed

Orders

  • Note of suspension refused
  • Charge and warrants found to have proceeded in order