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 £1, 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!
You are here:BAILII >>
Databases >>
Scottish Court of Session Decisions >>
Erskine v The Daughters of Erskine. [1739] Mor 9002 (22 December 1739)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1739/Mor2209002-133.html Cite as:
[1739] Mor 9002
A party had been cautioner for a teller in a bank, who, after the cautioner's death, run in arrear. The cautioner's children were found liable, altho' they pleaded minority and lesion; alleging, that their tutors, ought to have withdrawn the caution.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Colonel John and Mr Thomas Erskines had been cautioners for Mr George Andrew, as one of the tellers in the Royal Bank; and the Colonel being charged on his bond of cautionry for the sum of, in which Andrew was deficient in his accounts, repeated a process for his relief of the one-half from the representatives of the other cautioner.
Their defence was, that the deficiency had happened since their father's death, while they were pupils; that it was the duty of their tutors to have withdrawn their father's bond of cautionry, which every cautioner for a person in office, or his heir, may do when he thinks fit; and that against this omission they fell to be reponed on the head of minority and lesion.
But as this was no direct lesion, but a lesion arising from the accidental bankruptcy of the principal, and that occasioned by his latent and scarce to be suspected malversation, the Lords ‘found it not to be a lesion of that nature, against which the minor could be reponed; and therefore repelled the defence.’
It is a different question, how far tutors are liable to make up the loss arising from their omissions; for though, in this case, even the tutor would not be liable, as it was such an omission as a prudent man might have fallen into, yet, in many cases, minors will not be reponed against their tutors' omission, to the prejudice of a right acquired by third parties, when yet the tutor may be liable to make up the minor's loss.
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 582. Kilkerran (Minor.) No 4. p. 347.
