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 >> Cameron v Cameron. [1775] 5 Brn 393 (00 January 1775) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1775/Brn050393-0333.html |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION. reported by ALEXANDER TAIT, CLERK OF SESSION, one of the reporters for the faculty.
Subject_2 BILL.
Cameron
v.
Cameron
1775 .Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Bills blank in the creditor's name are null, upon the statute 1696, cap. 25. Bills, though containing the creditor's name, yet, if produced in judgment without a drawer's name, are incomplete mandates, and also null. This is the case where drawer and creditor are different; but where they are the same, and that the drawer's name is inserted in the body of the bill, the case merits consideration, although his name, as drawer, be not adhibited to the bill. If such a bill is holograph of the drawer, it would seem that his name inserted by himself, in græmio of the bill, as creditor, is equal to his subscription to it as drawer; but if the bill is not holograph,—the Lords, 13th July 1775, in the case of Cameron against Cameron, adhered to Lord Hailes' interlocutor finding such a bill void and null. Yet, afterwards, they altered, and, 9th December 1775, they sustained the bill. Lord Hailes' interlocutor was in these words:—“In respect, that although the bill bears in græmio to be payable to me, Alexander Cameron, yet it is not of the handwriting of the said Alexander Cameron, nor is the subscription or signature of a drawer adhibited to it: Find it not sufficient to elude this legal defence, That the defenders acknowledge their joint acceptance of the bill, and produce no satisfying evidence of its having been paid, or compensated, or discharged.”
But this interlocutor, upon the special circumstances of the case, the Lords altered, without determining the general point.
See Kilk., Bills of Exchange, No. 3 and 24. The point occurred this day, 3d December 1776, M'Michan against M'Master. It was not however determined, not being necessary. Lord Justice Clerk, Ordinary, had found such a bill void and null. It was plain that others of the Judges were of a different opinion.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting
