Loan. In its general acceptation, this word signifies the agreement by which the use of anything is given, under condition of its being returned to the owner. But as some articles, as provisions, must be destroyed in their use, or given away, as money, a distinction was made in the Roman law between mutuum and commodate; the former term being applied to the loan of fungibles, or such articles as perish in the use; the latter to the loan of those subjects which must be individually returned to the owner, and which subjects must therefore be of a nature capable of being used without destruction or alienation. In mutuum, the property of the subject is transferred; and if the subject be destroyed, the borrower to whom the property is transferred suffers the loss; but in commodate, as the property remains with the lender, and the use merely is given to the borrower, any loss befalling the subject must be borne by the lender.
Legal Subject: Loan |
| Case | Date | Legal Subject | Abstract |
|---|---|---|---|
| Woods v. Carstairs | 1777 | Bargain, Loan, Ranking of Creditors, Sale, Sequestration, Factor | This case concerns a promised wheat shipment from Robert Fleming, tenant in Falside, to James and William Woods, merchants in Elie. In January 1777, Fleming wrote the Woods brothers about his circumstances. He offered to send them "all the wheat that I have" in exchange for an advance of money. The Woods brothers sent Fleming about £9 in cash and approximately £30 in bills. Fleming then sent the Woods sixteen bolls of wheat, promising to deliver the remainder after seed-time. However, before this could happen, Fleming's affairs went into disorder, and he applied for a sequestration of his effects. The Woods then applied to James Carstairs, Fleming's factor, for the remainder of the wheat. Carstairs replied that the money Fleming had received from the two men was not a bargain, but a loan, and informed them that they would have to wait for the ranking of Fleming's creditors. The Woods then petitioned the Court to order Carstairs to deliver the wheat to them. As opposed to Carstair's claim that the transaction in question was a loan, the pursuers argued that it was a bargain. |
Documents discussing this subject (21)
- (EXCERPT from Minute of Meeting of Committee of Management,—25th July 1826.—Vide Appendix to Reclaiming Note, No. 3, p. 4.) (EXCERPT.)
- ANSWERS FOR Mess. Douglas, Heron, and Company, late Bankers in Ayr; TO THE PETITION of the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, and others, Creditors of Mess. Alexander, la
- ANSWERS FOR The GOVERNOR and COMPANY of the BANK of ENGLAND; TO A Paper, entitled, MINUTE in the Question betwixt the BANK of ENGLAND and the Creditors of WILLIAM ALEXANDER.
- Answers — App. to Ans.—William Pollock, to the Susp.—Alex
- APPENDIX STATE of Mr PULTENEY'S Engagements for W. A. and Sons.*
- APPENDIX. DECLARATIONS of ALEXANDER MACRAE Charger, JOHN MAC-TAVISH Suspender, and of WILLIAM MACRAE, Son of the Charger.
- James and William Woods v. James Carstairs — Answers, 7 Aug 1777
- John Campbell Tertius v. William Murray — Information, 11 Jan 1807
- John Campbell, Tertius, Writer to the Signet, Trustee for His Grace the Duke of Montrose, and Others, Trustees on the Turnpike-Road leading from Stirling to Drymen-Bridge v. William Murray of Touchadam, Esq. — Answers, 3 Mar 1808
- John Gordon Campbell and Others v. Thomas Laurie and Others — Answers, 15 Feb 1831
- Margaret Grant v. Alexander Baillie — Condescendence
- Mrs Ann Boyd or Wyse and William Wyse v. Mrs Susan Burgess or Wyse — Revised Condescendence and Answers
- Petition — Earl of Rosebery for Nomination of a Trustee. the Petition of the Right Honourable Neil, Earl of Rosebery
- Petition — The Governor and Company of the Bank of England, and others, Creditors of Messrs
- Robert Jamieson v. David Scott and Colonel John Scott — Answers, 4 Jan 1762
- Shepherd Brown v. William Christie and James Thomson — 7 Mar 1849
- The Duke and Duchess of Buckingham and Chandos, Lord Breadalbane's Trustees v. The Marchioness of Breadalbane, and Others — Note, 1 Mar 1843
- Thomas Megget v. John Scoular — Condescendence, 16 May 1816
- William Earl of Sutherland v. Alexander Ross and William Anderson — Respondents' Case, 12 Apr 1742
- William Jaffray v. William Lindsay and James Craig — Condescendence, 17 May 1828
- William Marshall v. Cunninghame, Dougal, and Co. — Answers, 1 Dec 1780