Scottish Court of Session Decisions

James Scott, grocer, raised an action in the Sheriff Court of Forfarshire, against William Scott, feuar in Dundee, concluding inter alia for payment of £435, advanced in loan, for which he libelled that the defender had “granted his letter of obligation.” The defender denied the debt, but admitted that he granted the letter, which was in these terms:—

“Hiltown of Dundee, 5th month, 27, 1822.

“Received thine this day, with four hundred and thirty-five pounds Sterling, which I shall peay when called for.

(Signed) “ William Scott.”

“£435 Sterling.”

“To James Scott, grocer, Hiltown, Dundee.”

The defender alleged that he got no value for granting the letter, and he pleaded that it was of the nature of a promissory-note, so as to be invalid without a stamp, which defect was now incurable.

The Sheriff assoilzied the defender “in respect that the writing, which is styled in the summons a letter of obligation, is not stamped; while, whether viewed as a promissory-note or as a bond, it can receive no faith in judgment without being so.” The pursuer brought an advocation, in which the Lord Ordinary found “that the writing, termed in the summons an obligatory letter, being an unqualified promise to pay a certain sum on demand, is to be held a promissory-note, and, not being stamped in terms of law, cannot be received as evidence of a debt, and that there is no other sufficient evidence that the claim against the respondent is well founded.”

The advocator reclaimed, and founded on the case of Pirie's Representatives, Feb. 28, 1833. ¹