BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Blyth v. Forbes (Blyth Brothers & Coy.'s Trustee) [1879] ScotLR 16_645 (27 June 1879) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1879/16SLR0645.html Cite as: [1879] ScotLR 16_645, [1879] SLR 16_645 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 645↓
[
(See Vallance v. Forbes, supra, p. 643)
A document in the following terms:—
“Mr Alexander Blyth,
3 Rosslyn Street, Edinburgh.
Dear Sir—We beg to acknowledge receipt of yours of date covering cheque for £100 sterling, which we hereby agree to repay you in say two years and six months from date, with interest at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum. Interest payable half-yearly.
In security we now enclose policies of the Life Association of Scotland on the lives of our Mr James and Mr David, No. 22,136, value £200, and No. 22,143, value £300 sterling, which are thus to be considered as assigned to you until repayment of the loan is made—Yours very truly,
Blyth Brothers & Co.
1st September 1877.”
held to be a promissory-note, and null as being unstamped.
In this case Mr Alexander Blyth claimed on the sequestrated estates of Blyth Brothers & Co. in respect of the document quoted supra.
The circumstances were precisely similar to those in the preceding case. On appeal against the trustee's deliverance rejecting the claim, and after a record had been made up, the Lord Ordinary on the Bills ( Adam) sustained a plea to the effect that the obligation was of the nature of a promissory-note, and void as not being stamped. He added this note:—
“ Note.—The Lord Ordinary thinks that the words ‘agree to pay’ in the document founded on in this case are equivalent to a promise to pay— Macfarlane v. Johnston, June 11, 1864, 2 Macp. 1210; Pirie's Representatives v. Smith's Executrix, February 28, 1833, 11 S. 473.
It was maintained by the appellant that there was no definite period of payment in respect of the word ‘say’ having been introduced before the words ‘two years and six months from date.’ It does not appear to the Lord Ordinary that the introduction of that word suggests any doubt or ambiguity as to the date of payment.
It further appears to the Lord Ordinary that the document is not to be considered the less a note because it contains a statement that certain policies have been sent therewith to be held as securities for the loan. Smith's Mercantile Law, 9th ed. p. 203, and cases there cited.”
Alexander Blyth reclaimed, and argued that on the face of the documents there was an obligation for repayment of a loan; that the date of payment was not specific; and that therefore the document was not a promissory-note.
At advising—
The Court adhered.
Counsel for Alexander Blyth (Appellant and Reclaimer)— Jameson. Agents— Foster &Clark, S.S.C.
Counsel for the Trustee ( Respondent)— Trayner— Thorburn. Agents— Boyd, Macdonald, & Co., S.S.C.
