Scottish Court of Session Decisions

The pursuer, Haddin, raised action for payment of £100 against M'Ewan and others, representatives of the late John M'Ewan and Thomas Ballingall, founding on the following acknowledgment alleged to have been granted by these parties to Haddin's father, now deceased:—

“Glasgow, 12th March, 1816.

“ Mr John Haddin.

“ Sir,—We acknowledge to have borrowed and received from you £100, which we will repay you at the term, and remain, sir, your most obedient servants,

(Signed)

“ John M'Ewan.

“ Thos. Ballingall.”

This document was not stamped. In defence against the action it was pleaded, inter alia, that the document libelled on being of the nature of a promissory note, was null for want of stamp. ¹

The Lord Ordinary, “in respect of the decision in the case of Pirie's representatives,” sustained this defence and assoilzied the defenders.

Haddin reclaimed, contending that there had been a contrariety of decisions

_________________ Footnote _________________

^* Pirie's Representatives v. Smith's Executrix, February 28, 1833 (ante, XI., 473.)

as to what was the proper test of a promissory note, and that the surest test was the existence of an express promise to pay at a particular time or on demand, which was awanting in the present case.