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!
You are here:BAILII >>
Databases >>
Scottish Court of Session Decisions >>
James Meikle v John Tennent. [1737] Mor 13225 (26 July 1737)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1737/Mor3113225-033.html Cite as:
[1737] Mor 13225
What if the payment or satisfaction be of that nature not to be proveable by witnesses? Qualified declaration. A party's subscription being referred to his oath, whether he can adject the quality that his obligation is conditional, when the deed bears it to be pure ? Where the terms of agreement are referred to oath, whether the quality of the endurance of the agreement, being for a limited time, is intrinsic or extrinsic?
James Meikle v. John Tennent
Date: 26 July 1737 Case No. No 33.
Quality in a declaration, whether intrinsic or extrinisic?
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The pursuer, as having right from Richard Meikle's Executor, brought a process against the defender for payment of 300 merks, which he had borrowed from Richard; and, as no written document had been given for the money, the pursuer insisted, That Tennent should confess or deny whether or not he had borrowed that sum from Richard Meikle.
The defender answered; He denied he ever borrowed or received that money from the deceased Richard Meikle, but on the express condition of repaying the same, only in case he should ask it in his own lifetime, and not otherwise, which was the reason why he required neither bill nor bond for the same.
The Lords found the quality in the declaration intrinsic.
