Scottish Court of Session Decisions

An innkeeper in Motherwell inserted an advertisement in the Glasgow Herald in the following terms:—“ Spirit shop for sale in the stirring burgh of Motherwell, convenient to the Cross; a rare opening to a person of enterprise. It is seldom such an opportunity occurs. Utensils and fittings at a sum. Stock, &c., at valuation. Parted with solely as the present tenant is retiring from the trade. Has always done a large business. For particulars, apply personally to D. Crichton, auctioneer, Coat-bridge, who only can conclude a bargain.” One of the complainers, being anxious to get the other complainer, his son, into business, negotiated for the purchase from the advertiser of the stock, fixtures, &c., of the house. The nett amount of the purchase was £99, 18s. 0 1 2d., of which £50 was paid in cash, and a bill was granted by the complainers for the balance of 649, 18s. 0 1 2d. The respondent, at the time of the purchase, was a creditor of the advertiser for sums advanced to him, and acquired right in partial liquidation of these advances to the said bill, in virtue of a special indorsation by the advertiser to “pay Mrs Janet Laird or Gibb or her order.” The present action is a suspension of a charge upon this bill, and is rested on the allegation by the complainers that the purchase was made on the strength of statements as to the flourishing nature of the business, which were not true, but, on the contrary, were fraudulent, and were made with the object of entrapping the complainer into a purchase. It was further said that the respondent was not an onerous holder of the bill, that she was a conjunct and confident person with the advertiser, that one of the complainers was a minor at the date of granting the bill (being then only twenty years of age) and that the respondent had become possessed of the bill after it fell due.

The complainers consigned the amount of the bill. It was not disputed by them that they had been in possession of the premises with the stock and fixtures purchased, from the date of the granting of the bill (a period of six months) and that they were still in possession. And further, it was admitted that they had made no attempt set aside this transaction by a process of reduction.