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] | |
United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions >> Samuel Stirling, and Others v. Robert Forrester, Esq., Treasurer to the Governor and Company of the Bank of Scotland [1821] UKHL 6_Paton_817 (19 March 1821) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1821/6_Paton_817.html Cite as: [1821] UKHL 6_Paton_817 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 817↓
(1821) 6 Paton 817
CASES DECIDED IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS, UPON APPEAL FROM THE COURTS OF SCOTLAND.
No. 153
Page: 818↓
House of Lords,
Subject_Cautioner — Discharge of.
This case is reported in Mr Shaw's Appeal Cases, vol. i., p. 37. It had reference to the question whether sureties who had guaranteed the payment of bills, were liberated from their cautionary obligation by the creditor taking other bills from the debtor, and giving up those they had guaranteed, and where it was held that one of the cautioners, whose consent had not been obtained to this, was discharged.
The
“My Lords, *
There is another case argued before your Lordships, and extremely well argued, I mean the case of Stirling and
Others, v. Forrester. On looking through all the circumstances of that case, and giving the best attention I have been able to give, to what I take to be the doctrine of the law of England, which certainly also is the doctrine of the law of Scotland, as to the acts of the principal creditor towards a surety, and likewise with respect to the acts of sureties as among themselves, it does appear to me, as at present advised, that the judgment which has been given in the Court below, cannot stand in all its parts. It will, however, be necessary, or at least expedient, that the House, in framing its decree, should be extremely cautious and careful with respect to the doctrines it shall state, as doctrines to govern cases of this kind. It has seemed to me, therefore, to be necessary, in using that caution, to request that before this judgment be given, the agents on each side being furnished with a copy of the paper which I now have in my hand, should give an answer when they are able to do it (probably in the course of two days), to the following inquiries,—What has become of the several bills drawn by James and George Spence upon and accepted by David Paterson, by Tod and Company, and Robertson and Stein respectively, and Whether these bills respectively, have been proved against the estates of all the several parties, to those bills or any, and which of them and by whom they have been proved, and what dividends have been received on each and every of those bills from the several estates of James and George Spence, David Paterson, Tod and Company, and Robertson and Stein respectively, besides those which are expressed and mentioned in the account that is delivered, and by whom and in what state the proof on those bills
_________________ Footnote _________________ * From Mr Gurney's short-hand notes.
Page: 819↓
