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 £5, 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 >>
Mrs. Helen Douglas v The Earl of Dunmore. [1800] Mor 4_15 (27 November 1800)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1800/Mor04BILLOFEXCHANGE-011.html Cite as:
[1800] Mor 4_15
Where a public officer draws a bill on the Lords of the Treasury, for money advanced for the public service, he incurs the usual obligation of drawer, if the bill be not duly accepted and paid.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The Earl of Dunmore, when Governor of the Bahama Islands, drew a bill for £3000. upon the Lords of the Treasury, in favour of Mrs. Helen Douglas, for value received, payable thirty days after sight.
Acceptance having been refused, Mrs. Douglas brought an action against his Lordship for payment.
The Lord Ordinary gave judgment in her favour for principal, interest and expenses.
Before the cause was again advised upon a representation with answers, the principal sum in the bill was paid at the Treasury, so that the only question remaining related to interest.
The Lord Ordinary having adhered to his former judgment, the Earl in a reclaiming petition,
Pleaded: The bill was drawn by the petitioner in his public capacity, and entitled the creditor to payment from the Treasury, but without recourse against the petitioner, whose credit was not meant or expected to be further pledged, than that the sum drawn for was truly due.
Public officers are frequently obliged to incur engagements of this kind, for sums greatly exceeding their private fortune, which, from pressure of business, or negligence at public offices, may not be immediately discharged, and it would be hard that any personal responsibility should be incurred. The contrary is established in England; 10th May 1806, Macbeath against Haldiman, Durnford's and East's Reports, Vol. I. p. 172. p. 180; 1st May 1787, Unwin against Woolsley, Ibid, p. 674.
The Earl likewise stated, that various other bills, drawn by him in the same circumstances, had at first been dishonoured, but afterwards paid by the Treasury, on his accounts being settled; and that the holders of them had acquiesced in an opinion of the Attorney and Solicitor General, that no personal claim lay against him. This opinion was not produced.
The Court were unanimously of opinion, that the ordinary rules of recourse applied, and refused the petition, without answers.
Lord Ordinary, Methven.For the petitioner, W. Erskine.Clerk, Home.
Fac. Coll. No. 199. p. 457.
