Guyot-Guenin & Son v. The Clyde Soap Co. [1915] ScotLR 45 (23 October 1915)

Guyot-Guenin & Son v. The Clyde Soap Co. [1915] ScotLR 45 (23 October 1915)

The Court held that the defenders' averments disclosed a prima facie case that payment might benefit an enemy, and that the pursuers should have the opportunity to rebut this by proof. The issue was a question of fact requiring investigation, not to be decided solely on documents. The interlocutors refusing decree were recalled, and proof was allowed.

Citation
[1915] ScotLR 45
Parties
Pursuer: Guyot-Guenin & Son; Defender: The Clyde Soap Company
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
23 October 1915
Procedural Posture
Action for Payment of Debt / Appeal to Court of Session, Inner House, First Division
Outcome
Interlocutors of the Sheriff and Sheriff-Substitute recalled; proof of averments allowed; case remitted for further procedure; record to be laid before the Lord Advocate; all questions of expenses reserved.
Legal Topics
Trading With the Enemy, Agency, Payment of Debt, Public Interest in Wartime, Consignment of Funds
Commercial Law War Law Civil Procedure Trading With the Enemy Agency Payment of Debt Public Interest in Wartime Consignment of Funds

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

Parties

Guyot-Guenin & Son

Pursuer

The Clyde Soap Company

Defender

Procedural Posture

Action for Payment of Debt / Appeal to Court of Session, Inner House, First Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether payment to the pursuers would constitute payment to or for the benefit of an enemy under the Trading with the Enemy Proclamation No. 2, 1914
  2. 2 Whether the pursuers acted as agents for an alien enemy or as independent merchants
  3. 3 Whether the defenders are precluded from making payment due to wartime regulations

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the defenders' averments disclosed a prima facie case that payment might benefit an enemy, and that the pursuers should have the opportunity to rebut this by proof. The issue was a question of fact requiring investigation, not to be decided solely on documents. The interlocutors refusing decree were recalled, and proof was allowed.

Court Disposition

Interlocutors of the Sheriff and Sheriff-Substitute recalled; proof of averments allowed; case remitted for further procedure; record to be laid before the Lord Advocate; all questions of expenses reserved.

Orders

  • Recall interlocutors of 10th May 1915 and 25th January 1915.
  • Allow parties a proof of their averments on record.