Fortune v Young [1917] ScotCS CSIH_1 (18 October 1917)

Fortune v Young [1917] ScotCS CSIH_1 (18 October 1917)

The letter constituted a binding guarantee under Scottish law, satisfying statutory requirements as it was in writing and subscribed by the defender, who was personally liable despite signing in the firm name. The absence of an addressee did not invalidate the guarantee, and the pursuer had title to recover the amounts claimed.

Citation
[1917] ScotCS CSIH_1
Parties
Pursuer: Fortune; Defender: Young
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
18 October 1917
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appellate Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed; decree for pursuer
Legal Topics
Guarantee, Cautionary Obligation, Mercantile Law Amendment Act (scotland), Requirements for Written Guarantees, Liability of Guarantor

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

Parties

Fortune

Pursuer

Young

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appellate Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the letter constituted a binding guarantee under Scottish law
  2. 2 Whether the guarantee complied with statutory requirements for written guarantees
  3. 3 Whether the absence of an addressee invalidated the guarantee

Ratio Decidendi

The letter constituted a binding guarantee under Scottish law, satisfying statutory requirements as it was in writing and subscribed by the defender, who was personally liable despite signing in the firm name. The absence of an addressee did not invalidate the guarantee, and the pursuer had title to recover the amounts claimed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; decree for pursuer

Orders

  • Decree granted for the amount sued for in favour of the pursuer.