M'Connachie v. Geddbs [1918] ScotLR 437_1 (16 March 1918)

M'Connachie v. Geddbs [1918] ScotLR 437_1 (16 March 1918)

The arrangement between the parties was one of mandate, not trust, and mandate may be proved by parole evidence. The Merchant Shipping Act 1894, sec. 24(1) requires only that the transfer of ship shares be by bill of sale, not that the contract for sale be in writing. The Act 1696, cap. 25 does not apply to mandates, and thus parole evidence was admissible. The defender was bound to transfer the shares to the pursuer upon payment.

Citation
[1918] ScotLR 437_1
Parties
Pursuer/respondent: Mrs Jean Allardyce Dickson or M'Connachie; Defender/appellant: William Geddes
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
16 March 1918
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session Inner House, Second Division
Outcome
appeal dismissed; interlocutors affirmed
Legal Topics
Mandate (agency), Sale of Ship Shares, Proof of Mandate Vs. Trust, Application of Act 1696, Cap. 25, Merchant Shipping Act 1894, Sec. 24
Commercial Law Trusts and Agency Shipping Law Mandate (agency) Sale of Ship Shares Proof of Mandate Vs. Trust Application of Act 1696, Cap. 25 Merchant Shipping Act 1894, Sec. 24

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

Parties

Mrs Jean Allardyce Dickson or M'Connachie

Pursuer/respondent

William Geddes

Defender/appellant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a contract for the sale of shares in a ship must be in writing under the Merchant Shipping Act 1894, sec. 24(1)
  2. 2 Whether the arrangement between the parties was a trust or a mandate (agency)
  3. 3 Whether parole (oral) evidence is admissible to prove the contract or mandate

Ratio Decidendi

The arrangement between the parties was one of mandate, not trust, and mandate may be proved by parole evidence. The Merchant Shipping Act 1894, sec. 24(1) requires only that the transfer of ship shares be by bill of sale, not that the contract for sale be in writing. The Act 1696, cap. 25 does not apply to mandates, and thus parole evidence was admissible. The defender was bound to transfer the shares to the pursuer upon payment.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; interlocutors affirmed

Orders

  • Defender to execute a valid transfer of 16/64 shares in the steamship 'Tynet' to the pursuer upon payment of £500