Macphail v. Lamson Paragon Supply Co. [1913] ScotLR 20 (29 October 1913)
The defender failed to aver a relevant agreement or bargain not to prosecute; the pleadings only disclosed threats, not a pactum illicitum. Therefore, the documents acknowledging the debt were not tainted by illegality and were enforceable.
- Citation
- [1913] ScotLR 20
- Parties
- Pursuer: Lamson Paragon Supply Company, Limited; Defender: Campbell D. Macphail
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judgment Date
- 29 October 1913
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed; decree for pursuers affirmed
- Legal Topics
- Pactum Illicitum, Agreement to Refrain From Prosecution, Relevancy of Pleadings, Illegal Consideration
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Lamson Paragon Supply Company, Limited
Pursuer
Campbell D. Macphail
Defender
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defender had relevantly averred an agreement to refrain from prosecution amounting to a pactum illicitum, thereby invalidating the debt acknowledgment and promissory note.
- 2 Whether threats of prosecution, without a definite agreement not to prosecute, render the documents unenforceable.
Ratio Decidendi
The defender failed to aver a relevant agreement or bargain not to prosecute; the pleadings only disclosed threats, not a pactum illicitum. Therefore, the documents acknowledging the debt were not tainted by illegality and were enforceable.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed; decree for pursuers affirmed
Orders
- The Lord Ordinary's interlocutor is adhered to.
- Decree granted for the sum sued for (£110, 8s. 8d.) with interest from the date of citation.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment