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 >> Thomas and Adam Fairholms, Petitioners. [1752] Mor 1474 (7 January 1752) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1752/Mor0401474-066.html Cite as: [1752] Mor 1474 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
[1752] Mor 1474
Subject_1 BILL OF EXCHANGE.
Subject_2 DIVISION I. Of the Object, Nature, and Requisites of Bills.
Subject_3 SECT. VIII. Indorsation.
Date: Thomas and Adam Fairholms, Petitioners
7 January 1752
Case No.No 66.
Scoring the indorsation, re-invests the indorser.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
A bill was drawn, 2d October 1751, by Sir Robert Richardson, of the Engineer-company, residing at Perth, upon James Cockburn, Esq; at the Office of
Ordnance in the Tower of London, “Ordering him, ten days after date, to pay to James Grieve, merchant in Berwick, the sum of L. 40 Sterling;” and which Grieve, upon the 4th October, indorsed to William Rutter, merchant in London, who duly protested the same at the Office of Ordnance, against the drawer and all others concerced. This bill Rutter returned to Grieve, With Grieve's indorsation scored; and Grieve again indorsed it to Thomas and Adam Fairholms; and they having given in the protest to be registered in their name; the Clerks of Session refused to do it without authority from the Lords.
The Fairholms, therefore, now apply for an order upon the Clerks, to registrate the protest in their name, as what is necessary in order to their having summary diligence against the drawer; and in their application say, that Rutter could not roindorse to Grieve, as no merchant will indorse a bill once protested; and that, in practice, the indorsee returning the protested bill to the indorser, with the indorsation scored, the indorser is, by that alone, understood to be re-invested therein.
The Lords inclined to have granted the desire of this petition, in respect that the like was, from the Bench, observed to have been done in former cases; but superseded advising the petition till the letter of advice from Rutter to Grieve should be produced.
And the same having thereafter been produced, the Lords “granted the desire of the petition.” See No 8. p. 1403.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting