Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Subject_1 Proof Subject_2 Parole Evidence Subject_3 Admissibility to Explain Written Documents Subject_4 Discharge — Ambiguity.
The defender pleaded, inter alia —“(1) The present action is excluded by the terms of the said letter dated 5th December 1910, and the subsequent payment of the said sum of £2500, conform to receipt dated 7th December 1910, granted in full settlement of all the pursuer's claims against the defender. (4) The pursuer's averments can be proved only by the writ or oath of the defender.”
On 3rd July 1912 the Lord Ordinary ( Skerrington ) allowed a proof habili modo .
“A question was raised whether the receipt was duly stamped, but that question has been obviated by its having been adjudicated on by the Inland Revenue.
I accordingly allow the parties, before answer, a proof of their averments habili modo .”
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.