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!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Henderson v Hay. [1802] Mor 17059 (20 February 1802) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1802/Mor3817059-340.html |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Subject_1 WRIT.
Subject_2 SECT. XI. Writs defective in Solemnities, Whether capable of Support, so as to furnish Action?
Date: Henderson
v.
Hay
20 February 1802
Case No.No. 340.
A bill of exchange altered in the term of payment, admitted as a legal document; the alteration appearing to have been made merely to correct a mistake.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
A report on printed papers was made from the bill-chamber of a bill of advocation, against a judgment of the Sheriff of Stirlingshire, admitting as a legal document of debt a bill of exchange, dated 7th of October, 1799, which seemed to have been first made payable at Martimas 1780 years, and afterwards corrected, so as to be payable at Martinmas 1800.
The accepter objected to payment of this bill, in as much as it was null, being vitiated, and therefore completely improbative: Supporting his reasoning on the judgment of the House of Lords, in Lee, Rodgers, and Company against Murdoch Robertson and Company on 26th December, 1801. See Appendix.
In answer, it was contended by the holder of the bill, that the material difference between that and the present case is, that the alteration by erasing the words “on demand,” and substituting “one day after date,” was acknowledged to have been done by the cashier of the Bank, the holder of the bill, and raiser of the action upon it; and it was likewise acknowledged, that the alteration had been made immediately before commencing the action, to found a claim for interest, which could not have been maintained on the bill as it originally stood. It was thus made long after the bill fell due, and without the approbation or knowledge of the accepters.
The Court were unanimous in considering, that the alteration was here made to correct a mere blunder or mistake, not by the drawer or holder of the bill, but probably by the advocator himself, who was also, the writer of the bill; and this it was presumed was done at the very time of writing the bill.
Reporter, Lord Justice Clerk. For the Advocator, Turnbull. Agent John Campbell, tertius. Alt. Agent, William Whyte.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting