National Bank of Scotland, Ltd v. Shaw [1912] ScotLR 81 (16 November 1912)

National Bank of Scotland, Ltd v. Shaw [1912] ScotLR 81 (16 November 1912)

The commanding officer is not personally liable for the overdraft because the bank account was opened and operated in the name of the corps' finance committee, cheques were signed per committee instructions, and there was no evidence of a personal guarantee or contract by the defender. The relevant statutory and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1912] ScotLR 81
Parties
Pursuer: National Bank of Scotland, Limited; Defender: James E. Shaw
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
16 November 1912
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary's Decision
Outcome
defender assoilzied (absolved); appeal dismissed; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary affirmed
Legal Topics
Personal Liability of Officers, Bank Overdraft Liability, Interpretation of Volunteer Act 1863, Application of Military Regulations to Civil Contracts
Contract Law Banking Law Military Law Personal Liability of Officers Bank Overdraft Liability Interpretation of Volunteer Act 1863 Application of Military Regulations to Civil Contracts

Source-derived case record

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

National Bank of Scotland, Limited

Pursuer

James E. Shaw

Defender

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the commanding officer of a Volunteer corps personally liable for a bank overdraft incurred in the name of the corps' finance committee?
  2. 2 Do section 25 of the Volunteer Act 1863 and Article 407 of the Volunteer Force Regulations 1901 impose personal liability on the commanding officer in such circumstances?
  3. 3 Was there a contract between the bank and the defender as an individual, or only with the corps/committee?

Ratio Decidendi

The commanding officer is not personally liable for the overdraft because the bank account was opened and operated in the name of the corps' finance committee, cheques were signed per committee instructions, and there was no evidence of a personal guarantee or contract by the defender. The relevant statutory and regulatory provisions do not impose personal liability on the commanding officer in dealings with a bank, nor was the bank a 'tradesman' within the meaning of the Regulations.

Court Disposition

defender assoilzied (absolved); appeal dismissed; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary affirmed

Orders

  • Defender assoilzied from the conclusions of the summons
  • Interlocutor of Lord Ordinary affirmed