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!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Alison v Agnes Seton. [1750] 1 Elchies 64 (12 January 1750) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1750/Elchies010064-046.html |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Subject_1 BILL OF EXCHANGE.
Alison
v.
Agnes Seton
1750 ,Jan. 12 .
Case No.No. 46.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Provost Williamson of Kirkaldy had a fish debenture 1719, not quite completed in all the forms, for L.262, whereof, and other such debentures, payment was stopped on account of suspected fraud in the sale. He in 1723 gave it to Harry Crawford in Crail, indorsed blank. It was by him given to Blair in 1737 in security of debt, who filled up his own name in the indorsation, and afterwards indorsed it to Alison, also as security of a debt that was afterwards paid; so that it came to be a trust in his person, who recovered payment; but the Exchequer retained a salt bond of Williamson's. Alison sued Williamson in recourse for the sum retained on the salt bond, who pleaded compensation on a balance of an account due by Harry Crawford, though his name did not appear on the debenture; but Alison owned that he had it in trust for Blair, who owned that he got it with the blank indorsation from Harry Crawford. Kilkerran sustained the compensation; and 7th June last we adhered; and this day we again adhered; for we thought that indorsations of debentures were only to be considered as conveyances of that debt authorized by law, not as indorsations of bills of exchange, and that if payment was refused by the Government, yet there would be no recourse, except as in this case it was evicted or retained for a debt of the indorser's, in which case, as an onerous assignee would have recourse against his cedent, so would an onerous indorsee, but not with the privileges of an indorsee of a bill of exchange, but as a common assignee, and therefore compensable with the debt of a prior indorsee. 2dly, That in the circumstances of this case, there was no presumption that the indorsation was onerous, and therefore no recourse.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting