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 £5, 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 >> Elizabeth and James Dicksons v George Trotter. [1776] Hailes 675 (18 January 1776) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1776/Hailes020675-0394.html Cite as: [1776] Hailes 675 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
[1776] Hailes 675
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR DAVID DALRYMPLE, LORD HAILES.
Subject_2 ASSIGNATION.
Subject_3 The debtor's private knowledge is not equivalent' to an intimation, nor is parole evidence competent for proving such knowledge.
Date: Elizabeth and James Dicksons
v.
George Trotter
18 January 1776 Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
[Fac. Coll. VII. 163; Dictionary, 873.]
Monboddo. If the question were between creditors, private knowledge could not be proved by witnesses; but the case may be different where the question is with a debtor. In that light I consider Mr Trotter.
Justice-Clerk. Private knowledge has never been held as sufficient when supported by no writing whatever. It would be dangerous to prove, by witnesses
only, that a man had the private knowledge of a deed; for knowledge is an act of the mind, and witnesses may differ in their opinion as to what will infer such knowledge. It would be going very far to refer private knowledge even to the oath of party; for he might say, “I did know so and so; but I relied on the law, which, by assignation intimated, puts me in mala fide, but not otherwise.” It might be difficult to divide this oath. The case of proving by witnesses is still narrower. Gardenston. It would be dangerous to controvert the principles just now delivered. It is a valuable part of our law not to give credit to witnesses in matters of debt. A debt cannot be created by witnesses. You might as well prove the assignation as the intimation by witnesses.
President. It would hurt the law extremely, if this evidence were received. Homologation may, in some cases, be proved by witnesses, because valid and effectual acts of homologation are such, that they cannot be applied to any other case; whereas private knowledge is a thing uncertain. Because, if there has been any loss here, it has been occasioned by the neglect of the pursuers in not intimating their assignation.
On the 18th January 1776, “The Lords assoilyied;” adhering to Lord Stonefield's interlocutor.
Act. B. W. M'Leod. Alt. W. Nairne.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting
