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 >> James Swan in Lochlyoch v James Swan in Boghead and Others. [1786] Hailes 998 (30 June 1786) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1786/Hailes020998-0667.html Cite as: [1786] Hailes 998 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
[1786] Hailes 998
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR DAVID DALRYMPLE, LORD HAILES.
Subject_2 BILL OF EXCHANGE - OATH OF PARTY.
Subject_3 Oath of Party, respecting the onerosity of a Bill, must be special.
Date: James Swan in Lochlyoch
v.
James Swan in Boghead and Others
30 June 1786 Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
[Faculty Collection, IX. 441; Dictionary, 9418.]
Eskgrove. Samuel Swan ought to have explained what value he gave: his refusal was highly improper.
Monboddo. His refusal affords suspicion that he could not prove value given.
President. It is strange law, that a person is not bound to swear what the value was, and that he may screen himself under a general answer.
Justice-Clerk. The party, by advice of his procurator in the country, refused to answer. But then, when he came to town, he ought to have offered to answer all questions: had he made such an offer, and then died in the interval before swearing, I should have presumed that value had been given; but I cannot presume so in this case, for Samuel Swan, even when in this Court, still refused to swear as to particulars.
On the 30th June 1786, “In respect that Samuel Swan refused to answer the interrogatories put to him by the Commissioner, and persisted in that refusal before the Ordinary, the Lords found that the onerosity of the indorsation to the bill in question, in favour of Samuel Swan, is not sufficiently instructed:” and, on the 18th July 1786, “adhered;” altering the interlocutor of Lord Stonefield.
Act. W. Honeyman. Alt. H. Erskine.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting
