Inglis v. Rothfield

Quentin Godfrey Inglis, complainer , brought a note of suspension of a charge at the instance of Henry Rothfield, respondent , to make payment of £3000, with interest thereon at 5 per cent. per month, due upon a promissory—note granted by the complainer to the respondent dated 15th October 1919, and payable three months after date. The complainer stated that he was willing to find caution, but contended that he was entitled to have the note passed without caution or consignation.

The complainer aveerred—“(Stat. 1)… The respondent is a money-lender, and carries on business at 58 New Bond Street, London, W. (Stat. 2) The complainer and respondent have had several money-lending transactions. Prior to the transactions referred to in statement 5, for which the promissory-note now charged on was granted, the complainer has always met the demands of the respondent arising out of these transactions. (Stat. 3) The respondent was well aware of the financial position of the complainer. Page: 568 ↓

The complainer pleaded—“1. The transaction between the complainer and respondent being harsh and unconscionable, the Court should reopen the same and fix the sum, if any, payable by the complainer, in terms of the Money-lenders Act 1900. 2.

The complainer having during his transactions with the respondent made payment to him of sums largely in excess of the sum borrowed, together with reasonable interest, suspension should be granted as craved.”

On 17th February 1920 the Lord Ordinary on the Bills ( Blackburn ) granted an interim sist of execution without caution or consignation.