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 £5, 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 >> Gordon v Cusigne. [1674] Mor 13234 (3 January 1674)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1674/Mor3113234-048.html
Cite as: [1674] Mor 13234

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


[1674] Mor 13234      

Subject_1 QUALIFIED OATH.
Subject_2 SECT. V.

No exception will be sustained unless proponed at Litiscontestation.

Gordon
v.
Cusigne

Date: 3 January 1674
Case No. No 48.

A person having deponed in an action against him, that he had bought a horse, and delivered the pursuer a cow, which was accepted as the price of the horse, the defender was found obliged to prove what be had deponed.


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

Anna Gordon pursues William Cusigne for several sums and goods of her's intrusted to him, and wherewith he had intromitted, and, amongst others, for the price of a horse; he deponed, that he received and bought the horse at the price of L. 24 Scots, and deponed that he delivered to her a cow, which she accepted for the price of the horse; whereupon the question arose, whether this was a competent quality in the oath, or behoved to be proved as an exception; for if he had deponed that he bought the horse at L. 24, and that he paid the same, payment would have been made a competent quality, the libel being referred to the party's oath, but compensation would not have been a competent quality, but behoved to have been proved.

The Lords found, that if the acceptance of the cow for the price of the horse had been a part of the bargain at the same time with the sale of the horse, it had been an intrinsic quality, declaring a part of the bargain; or if it had been payment ex post facto in money, conform to the bargain; but being the acceptance ex post facto of the cow for the same price, which was in effect a new sale of the cow, they found that it was no competent quality, but behoved to be proved.

Fol. Dic. v. 2. p. 299. Stair, v. 2. p. 246.

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/1674/Mor3113234-048.html