Gillow v Burgess
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lord Pitmilly. M'K. |
| Judgment Date | 21 May 1824 |
| Date | 21 May 1824 |
| Court | Court of Session (Inner House - Second Division) |
| Docket Number | No. 31. |
Lord Pitmilly. M'K.
Interest—Foreign.—
Gillow and Company, upholsterers in London, made furnishings, in 1816, to the extent of L. 3600 to Burgess, then residing in England. In 1817 they received partial payments to the amount of L. 700; but four years having elapsed without any further payment to account, Gillow and Company directed their agents in Scotland (where Burgess held property in right of his wife, and had acquired a domicile), to take steps for recovering the debt. These gentlemen sent a state of the account due, including a charge for interest on the whole sum (deducting a year's credit), to Burgess's factor on his wife's estates, making a demand for payment, and threatening legal proceedings, if not complied with. The factor, in answer, requested delay, till he should communicate with Burgess, who was then abroad. This was granted, and repeatedly renewed on subsequent applications, when, after considerable delay, an arrangement was gone into, to pay the debt by instalments. No objection was ever stated to the charge of interest until the payment of the last instalment was demanded, when Burgess transmitted an acceptance for the balance due of the principal sum alone, and refused to pay the interest. This was returned by the agents for Gillow and Company, who insisted on payment of the interest. The acceptance for the balance of the principal was again transmitted, and a second time returned on the part of Gillow and Company, who then raised an action, concluding for payment of this balance and interest on the whole account. In defence it was pleaded, that, by the law of England, which was the locus contractus, interest was not due on book-accounts. It was answered, that Burgess' factor, by never objecting to the claim of interest, and by asking and obtaining delay, must be held to have agreed to the demand of interest, at least from the time of asking delay. The Lord Ordinary decerned for payment of the balance of the principal sum, but assoilzied from the claim of interest; and the Court adhered.
Circumstances held not to infer an obligation to pay interest on an English...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hargreaves v Revenue and Customs Commissioners
...been assessed or an assessment to tax is insufficient or relief is excessive is now subject to the limitations contained in s 29(2) and ( 3) (s 29(1)). Section 29(2) prevents the Revenue making an assessment to remedy an error or mistake if the taxpayer has submitted a return in accordance ......
-
Derek William Hankinson v HM Revenue and Customs
...been assessed or an assessment to tax is insufficient or relief is excessive is now subject to the limitations contained in s 29(2) and ( 3) (s 29(1)). Section 29(2) prevents the Revenue making an assessment to remedy an error or mistake if the taxpayer has submitted a return in accordance ......
-
Sanderson v Revenue and Customs Commissioners
...been assessed or an assessment to tax is insufficient or relief is excessive is now subject to the limitations contained in s 29(2) and ( 3) (s 29(1)). Section 29(2) prevents the Revenue making an assessment to remedy an error or mistake if the taxpayer has submitted a return in accordance ......