Scottish Court of Session Decisions

This was an action in which Robert M'Meekin, farmer, Culgrange, Inch, Wigtownshire, sued David Easton, Kilmarnock, executor-dative of the deceased Rev. Thomas Easton, minister of the Gospel, Stranraer; Peter Lusk, farmer, Craigcaffie, Inch; and Mrs Maria Hudson or Easton, widow and executrix of the deceased David Easton, doctor of medicine, Stranraer, for payment of the sum of £290 sterling, being balance remaining due of the principal sum of £300 contained in a promissory-note dated 17th March 1882. The note was in these terms—“One day after date, we, the undersigned, in the name and on the behalf of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Stranraer, promise to pay to Robert M'Meekin, or Miss Agnes M'Meekin, Culgrange, or order, within the British Linen Bank, Stranraer, with interest at a rate not exceeding four per cent. per annum, the sum of £300 sterling, value received. (Signed) T. Easton; Peter Lusk; David Easton.”

The advance was made in the following circumstances—To meet the cost of repairs upon the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Stranraer, an account was opened in March 1876 with the Clydesdale Bank there, in name of the treasurer of the congregation as authorised by a minute of managers dated 4th March 1876, from which account at sundry times between March 1876 and March 1882 sums were drawn. The balance against the congregation on said account amounted in March 1882 to about £300, and to reduce the burden on the congregation of interest on said sum, which the treasurer represented was accumulating, as he had no funds out of which to meet it, the loan of £300 at 4 per cent. interest was obtained from the pursuer.

The pursuer averred that the note was granted on the representation that Mr Easton was the debtor and the other two his cautioners. They did not ask or receive sanction from the congregation for the transaction. Further, Mr Ea-ton on 18th April 1885 received from Mr Alexander Whitelaw a donation of £300 towards the extinction of the debt upon the church, and collected besides other sums to meet the cost of repairs still outstanding. These various subscriptions, however, he failed to intimate to the managers of the congregation.

The defenders averred that the loan was obtained by the managers of the congregation from the pursuer, who was then an elder and presently president of the managers. The managers authorised the Rev. Mr Easton, Peter Lusk, and the late David Easton, the minister and two of their number, to grant to M'Meekin the promissory-note sued on in the name and on the behalf of the congregation. It was not the case that the Rev. Thomas Easton was principal, and the defender Peter Lusk and the late David Easton truly cautioners, in said obligation, and no representation to that effect was made to the pursuer. The obligation to the Clydesdale Bank was the obligation of the congregation, and not of any individual members, and it was the intention of parties that the obligation to Mr M'Meekin, which was to replace it, should likewise be the obligation of the congregation, and not the personal obligation of the individual members who were authorised to sign in the name and on the behalf of the congregation. The elders and managers of the congregation at a meeting on 21st March 1887 “agreed to recognise Mr M'Meekin's bill for £290 as a debt due to him by the church,” and Mr M'Meekin, who was himself present and presided at the meeting, “at the same time agreed to allow the same to remain as formerly at 4 per cent. interest.” Further meetings of the managers were held on 20th June and 8th July 1887. At the former meeting it was resolved “that the managers agree to abide by and confirm their minute of March 21st last, recognising and accepting the bill in the said minute described as an obligation resting on the congregation; … that Mr M'Meekin be asked to allow the bill meantime to remain in its present form; that a subscription list be opened, … and that the following committee be, and now are, appointed to carry out this arrangement, and adopt whatever measures they may deem necessary, so that the whole sum required may be obtained and conveyed to Mr M'Meekin without any undue delay.” … This resolution was read and approved of, Mr M'Master dissenting, at the meeting of 8th July 1887. At both these meetings the pursuer was present. At a meeting of the congregation on 8th August 1887 the views of the managers as to the adoption of the debt were submitted, and subscriptions to meet it were there intimated. In these circumstances the defenders declined to pay the bills sued on, averring no liability thereunder, in respect that it was the obligation of the congregation merely, and not of the parties signing it. In any view, the managers of the church had undertaken liability for the said promissory-note, and collected subscriptions to defray the liability thereunder, and the said Robert M'Meekin had taken them as his debtor.

The pursuer explained that the managers and congregation now declined to pay him any portion of the debt, on the ground that the donation which the late Mr Easton received from Mr Whitelaw for payment of the debt deprived the defenders of all claim to relief at their hands. They averred that the resolutions embodying the proposed arrangement for payment of the sum in question were all passed under essential error

Page: 244↓

as to the facts connected with the defenders' obligation for the same, which error was induced by their representations, and in entire ignorance of the fact that the defenders had long since been provided with the means of paying off the debt, and they accordingly maintained that they are in no way bound by said resolutions.

The pursuer pleaded—“(1) The late Reverend Mr Easton, the defender Peter Lusk, and the late Dr David Easton having granted, and being personally liable for the sums due under, the said promissory-note, and the sums sued for with interest being due, the pursuer is entitled to decree as concluded for, with expenses.”

The defenders pleaded—“(2) The promissory-note sued on is not the personal obligation of the defender Peter Lusk and of the now deceased Reverend Thomas Easton and David Easton, and the defenders are therefore entitled to be assoilzied. (4) Separatim—Delegation.”

On 26th July 1888 the Lord Ordinary ( Kinnear) decerned against the defenders in terms of the conclusions of the summons.

“ Note.—The promissory-note must be held as the obligation of the granters, creating a personal liability against them. If this be its effect there appears to me to be no sufficient averment to support the plea of delegation. There is nothing in what took place at the meetings mentioned on record, according to the defenders' account of them, from which it ought to be inferred that the pursuer has discharged his original debtors and accepted the managers in their place. The defenders may have a claim of relief against the managers of the congregation, but they have not been relieved of their direct liability under the promissory-note.”

The defenders reclaimed, and argued—1. They were not personally liable. They only acted for the congregation of the church in granting the promissory-note, and this appeared from the wording of the document itself. The only persons who could be sued were the managers or other persons liable for the debts of the congregation. It appeared on the face of the note that it was granted on behalf of some one other than the person signing, and a proof should be allowed of the circumstances to ascertain the true obligant—Bills of Exchange Act (45 and 46 Vict. cap. 61), secs. 89 and 26; Gadd v. Houghton and Another, June 20, 1876, L.R., 1 Ex. Div. 357; Alexander and Others v. Lizer, January 26, 1869, L.R., 4 Ex. Div. 103; Brown, &c. v. Sutherland, March 17, 1875, 2 R. 615; Gordon v. Campbell, June 13, 1842, 1 Bell's App. 428; Woodside v. Cuthbertson, February 4, 1848, 10 D. 604; Webster v. M'Culman, June 3, 1848, 10 D. 1133; Chiene v. Western Bank of Scotland, July 20, 1848, 10 D. 1523; Union London Commercial Bank v. Kitson and Others, May 19, 1884, L.R., 13 Q.B.D. 360. 2. This was a case of delegation, and the pursuer accepted the congregation as his debtor.

Counsel for the respondent were not called upon.