Gill v. Gill [1907] ScotLR 44_376 (08 February 1907)

Gill v. Gill [1907] ScotLR 44_376 (08 February 1907)

The Court held that the receipt signed by the defender, acknowledging the sum withdrawn from the pursuer's bank account, constituted sufficient written evidence of a loan. The defender failed to produce any writ to prove the money was received on any other basis. Therefore, the presumption of loan was not rebutted, and the pursuer was entitled to repayment.

Citation
[1907] ScotLR 44_376
Parties
Pursuer/appellant: John Gill junior; Defender/respondent: Mrs Grace Greig or Gill; Defender/respondent (curator and Administrator in Law): John Gill (senior)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
08 February 1907
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Inner House, Court of Session
Outcome
appeal allowed; interlocutor of Sheriff-Substitute recalled; decree for pursuer
Legal Topics
Loan, Burden of Proof, Proof by Writ or Oath, Receipt as Evidence, Banking Transactions
Civil Law Contract Law Evidence Law Loan Burden of Proof Proof by Writ or Oath Receipt as Evidence Banking Transactions

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Gill junior

Pursuer/appellant

Mrs Grace Greig or Gill

Defender/respondent

John Gill (senior)

Defender/respondent (curator and Administrator in Law)

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defender received £48, 11s. from the pursuer as a loan and is liable to repay it
  2. 2 Whether the receipt endorsed on the bank order constitutes sufficient written evidence of a loan under Scots law
  3. 3 Whether the defender discharged the onus to prove by writ that the money was received on a different basis than loan

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the receipt signed by the defender, acknowledging the sum withdrawn from the pursuer's bank account, constituted sufficient written evidence of a loan. The defender failed to produce any writ to prove the money was received on any other basis. Therefore, the presumption of loan was not rebutted, and the pursuer was entitled to repayment.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; interlocutor of Sheriff-Substitute recalled; decree for pursuer

Orders

  • Defender ordained to pay pursuer £48, 11s.
  • Interlocutor of Sheriff-Substitute recalled