Scottish Court of Session Decisions

An ingenious argument was submitted to us, based upon the correspondence, but the actual point is one beyond doubt, for it is clear that Glasgow made the demand for relief, and stated the particulars of the case. It is also reasonable to presume that Eastwood made all the inquiry deemed necessary previously to making the admission. The pauper had, however, ceased meanwhile to be chargeable, and yet in face of a second notice that the chargeability had been renewed this admission was made. The letter of 10th August is the answer of Eastwood to the claim from Glasgow. On a reference to the terms of that letter it is evident that Eastwood wished to know whether the liability was still continuing. Why should they do this if not liable? The whole question really is, Whether this letter was or was not an admission of liability. It is in fact a question of construction of the letter aided by the circumstances under which it was written.

Two points for inquiry occur to me in this view—Firstly, what did the inspector of Eastwood mean by his letter? As to this we learn from the minutes of the parochial board of Eastwood that they had directed him to “admit to Glasgow.” Secondly, what did Glasgow understand by this letter? I think it is clear that throughout Glasgow regarded this letter as an admission of liability, and that they referred to it in their correspondence as such. Now the inspector of East—wood knew well enough that he could only follow out the orders of his board, and whatever reservation was made must have been in his own mind. Till 1873 the matter fell out of sight, but in April of that year it was revived—still nothing can get over that letter of August 10, 1870. Throughout the correspondence the inspector of Eastwood never said that he did not mean to admit liability — that position was never taken up until July 1877. That being so, the principle of Beattie v. Arbuckle seems to apply. To me such a principle appears very necessary in order to check litigation. In cases like the present the parties are, as it were, playing at litigation, for those who contest them have really no personal interest in the matter. The object of the rules laid down upon this branch of our law is to facilitate settlements and prevent such legal contest. I am of opinion that the interlocutor of the Sheriff should be recalled and the appeal sustained.

Lord Ormidale—There are two points in this case—(1) was the admission made? (2) if made, has it been waived or effectually retracted?

Now, as to the first point, I am clear that the admission of liability was made by the inspector of Eastwood in his letter of August 10, 1870.

Then, as to the second, it is said that there was rather a waiver than a retractation. But I cannot think we have enough even for this. The mode adopted by Eastwood was to answer no letters, and accordingly the correspondence erelong died out; but that is not sufficient. I concur with your Lordship in the opinion that this appeal should be sustained.

Lord Gifford—I concur. I think the authorities absolutely establish the doctrine that an admission once asked and obtained cannot be gone back upon. Of course it is possible to imagine exceptions in cases of fraud and so forth, but here we have nothing exceptional of that xsnature. Such an admission of liability is held by the law to be a conclusive bargain in all time coming between the parties with reference to the particular pauper to whom the question has arisen. Both the Sheriff and Sheriff-Substitute have treated this point as of small importance, whereas in reality it is the turning point in my opinion of the case. We cannot permit a parish by the use of vague expressions to evade a reply to the statutory demand for an admission of liability. Now the admission if made for a certain amount of liability was an admission for all, provided there had been no charge of circumstances. Here there was no change. Glasgow plainly relied on the first admission, and the fact that owing to Eastwood's silence the matter dropped for seven years should offer no bar to the effectual nature of the admission.