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 £1, 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!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Scottish Court of Session Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Reid, Englishman, v Binning. [1670] Mor 13202 (6 January 1670)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1670/Mor3113202-003.html
Cite as: [1670] Mor 13202

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


[1670] Mor 13202      

Subject_1 QUALIFIED OATH.
Subject_2 SECT. I.

Where the Qualified Oath imports a Denial of the Libel.

Reid, Englishman,
v.
Binning

Date: 6 January 1670
Case No. No 3.

Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy

Binning being charged upon his bond, for payment of L. 10 Sterling, did suspend upon payment of a part of the money, extending to 40s. Sterling, which he referred to the charger's oath; who having deponed qualificate, that as he confessed he received that sum, so it was in satisfaction of several particulars not relating to the bond; it was debated, if that quality should be received, unless it were otherwise instructed than by the charger's oath, seeing the suspender had no other way to prove the payment; and it was alleged that he ought to stand to the qualification. The Lords, notwithstanding, did not sustain the quality, unless the deponent could instruct otherwise than by his own oath, but reserved him action for those particulars, in respect that the suspender being charged upon his bond, where it was confessed that a part was paid, he might in law ascribe the same to the bond, if he had a simple receipt bearing no cause; and if the charger had entrusted for any other sum, or particular goods, he ought to have taken his bond or ticket therefor, otherwise he could crave nothing of that sum in satisfaction of any other cause which he could not instruct.

Fol. Dic. v. 2. p. 295. Gosford MS. p. 58.

*** A similar decision was pronounced. February 1730, Cameron against Danskine; No 14. p. 13207.

The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting     


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1670/Mor3113202-003.html