Dubious Clauses. - Revocation of a Tailzie. - Liberty to contract Debt. - Conjunctly and Severally. - Just and Lawful Debts. - Liferent and Fee. - Back-Bond. - Importing Property or only Servitude.
Sir Rorie M'Laud v. Walter Young and John Govan
Date: 20 December 1665 Case No. No 36.
A clause, dubious, interpreted against the writer.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Walter Young, John Govan, and Henry Hope, by a letter written to any that they should buy cows from in the Highlands, desired that they might use the bearer of the letter kindly, and, for whatever quantity of cows they bought, they should answer such bills as he should draw upon them therefor. Henry Hope being broken, James Gray, as assignee, pursues the other two for the whole, who alleged, they were only liable for their own parts. It was answered, that they were obliged to answer such bills as the person intrusted by them should draw; and they produce a bill drawn by him upon them, or either of them. It was answered, That such bills can only relate to the quantity, and not to the quality, and manner of obliging; seeing, if they had so intended, they would have obliged them, and either of them, or it would have borne, what he should draw upon them, or either of them, should be answered.
The Lords found every one of them liable in solidum; for they thought, that the clause being dubious, was to be interpreted against the writers, and the sellers of the cows were bona fide to rest upon the interpretation of the persons intrusted.
