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 >>
Thomas Laidlaw v Mungo Park. [1774] Mor 16941 (3 August 1774)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1774/Mor3816941-178.html Cite as:
[1774] Mor 16941
Whether the superinduction in a bill, of a less sum than what the original still legibly was, vitiates the bill, the alteration being made by the debtor himself, at the time of his accepting it?
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Park being sued, as representing the deceased John Park, for payment of a bill which John had accepted for £50 Sterling, payable to Laidlaw, pleaded, That the bill was not actionable, as being vitiated in substaintialibus.
It was admitted, that the sum of the bill, as originally drawn by the pursuer, was £60, and in that shape having been sent to John Park, by the pursuer's wife, to get it accepted, the account given of the superinduction that now appears in it was this: That, when the bill was presented to John Park, he did not refuse that he had agreed in terms thereof with the pursuer; but said, he only inclined to make the bill for the principal sum, for that he intended to pay up the interest, which amounted to £10, previous to the term of payment in the bill; and accordingly, with his own hand he changed the letters s and x, in the word sixty, into an ff, making the sum fifty instead of sixty, and then he accepted the bill, and sent it back to the pursuer; and that this alteration was demonstratively the operation of John Park himself, is undeniable, from comparing the letters altered with the bill itself, and subscription adhibited, as the alteration is done with the same mark and form of writing.
“The Lords, in respect of the special circumstances of this case, particularly that it is not denied, that the alteration of the sum in the bill was made by the acceptor himself, and that, from ocular inspection, it appears that the sum has been lessened from sixty to fifty, which is in favours of the acceptor, sustain the bill to the extent of the said fifty pounds Sterling claimed; repel the objection thereto; and remit to the Ordinary to proceed accordingly.”
