Scotland v. Scotland [1909] ScotLR 335 (04 February 1909)

Scotland v. Scotland [1909] ScotLR 335 (04 February 1909)

The production of an endorsed cheque, even if payable to order, does not constitute sufficient written evidence of a loan or an obligation to repay under Scots law. The law requires explicit written acknowledgment of the loan, not merely evidence that money passed. The absence of the I.O.U. and the lack of other written evidence preclude the pursuer from proving the loan by parole evidence.

Citation
[1909] ScotLR 335
Parties
Pursuer (appellant): Elizabeth J. Scotland; Defender (respondent): John Scotland
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
04 February 1909
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session Inner House, First Division
Outcome
appeal dismissed; interlocutor of the Sheriff affirmed
Legal Topics
Loan, Proof of Debt, Cheque Endorsement, Written Evidence Requirement
Contract Law Banking Law Evidence Law Loan Proof of Debt Cheque Endorsement Written Evidence Requirement

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elizabeth J. Scotland

Pursuer (appellant)

John Scotland

Defender (respondent)

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the production of an endorsed cheque is sufficient written evidence to infer an obligation to repay an alleged loan under Scots law.
  2. 2 Whether the absence of an I.O.U. or other explicit written acknowledgment of loan precludes proof of loan by parole evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The production of an endorsed cheque, even if payable to order, does not constitute sufficient written evidence of a loan or an obligation to repay under Scots law. The law requires explicit written acknowledgment of the loan, not merely evidence that money passed. The absence of the I.O.U. and the lack of other written evidence preclude the pursuer from proving the loan by parole evidence.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; interlocutor of the Sheriff affirmed

Orders

  • Pursuer's appeal refused
  • Sheriff's interlocutor affirmed