Clark & Macdonald v. Schulze [1902] ScotLR 39_318 (21 January 1902)

Payment by Schulze to his country agent Peebles did not discharge his liability to Clark & Macdonald, as Peebles was not authorised to receive payment as agent for Clark & Macdonald but only as Schulze's agent for transmission. The loss from Peebles' embezzlement must fall on Schulze.

Citation: [1902] ScotLR 39_318
Parties: Pursuer: Clark & Macdonald; Defender: William Schulze
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judgment Date: 21 January 1902
Procedural Posture: Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor
Outcome: appeal dismissed; judgment for pursuers affirmed
Legal Topics: Law Agent Liability, Client Payments, Embezzlement by Agent, Law Agents (scotland) Act 1873 S.21

Agency Law Legal Profession Law Agent Liability Client Payments Embezzlement by Agent Law Agents (scotland) Act 1873 S.21

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3

Parties

Clark & Macdonald

Pursuer

William Schulze

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor

Legal Issues

1 Whether payment by client to country agent (who embezzled funds) discharges liability to Edinburgh agents
2 Whether country agent was authorised to receive payment as agent for Edinburgh agents or only as agent for client

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; judgment for pursuers affirmed

Orders

Defender not entitled to deduct £20 paid to Peebles from account due to Clark & Macdonald
Defender to pay full sum sued for (£33, 5s. 7d.)