If you found BAILII useful today, could you please make a contribution?

Your donation will help us maintain and extend our databases of legal information. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month donates, 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 >> John Yule v David Robertson. [1788] Mor 9419 (13 November 1788)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1788/Mor2209419-028.html
Cite as: [1788] Mor 9419

[New search] [View without highlighting] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


[1788] Mor 9419      

Subject_1 OATH of PARTY.
Subject_2 SECT. II.

Whether a Party may be required to depone super facto alitno? - Whether Oath of Party, must be special?

John Yule
v.
David Robertson

Date: 13 November 1788
Case No. No 28.

A party being examined as a haver, it is not competent to put to him questions relative to the existence of the debt.


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

Robertson being debtor to Yule, attested an account of different articles composing the debt. In an action for payment of it, Robertson, by virtue of letters of incident diligence, was examined on oath, whether he himself had not the attested account in his possession. In the course of his examination, ‘being interrogated for the pursuer, If both parties fairly settled the balance due by the deponent on the attested account? he deponed, That they did; and that he paid the balance.’ On this ground

The defender pleaded; The pursuer, by putting the above question, referred to the defender's oath the existence of the debt, which his negative answer has disproved.

Answered; Reference to oath of party being a judicial act, has effect no farther than the authority which is essential to it extends; Bankton, b. 4. tit. 32. § 9.; Falconer, 8th July 1749, Elliot contra Ainslie and Porteous, No 15. p. 9363. Here was no authority but for examining the party as a haver.

The Lord Ordinary found, that “various questions had been put to the defender when examined as a haver, which were only competent to be put to him if he had been examined as a party, and which he therefore might have declined to answer; and that the answers he has made to such questions cannot have the force of an oath of party, there having been no previous judicial reference.”

To that judgment, (it being observed, that artifices of this kind appeared to be multiplying in practice, and ought to be checked), the Court adhered.

Lord Ordinary, Dregborn. Act. Elliot. Alt. Ja. Clerk. Clerk, Menzies. Fol. Dic. v. 4. p. 22. Fac. Col. No 43. p. 73.

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/1788/Mor2209419-028.html