Whether Magistrates are liberated by expiry of their office.
Bowie v. Wilson, &c
Date: 7 February 1695 Case No. No 16.
Money being borrowed for the use of a royal burgh, and bond granted by the Magistrates, binding themselves, conjunctly and severally, and their successors in office, the town only was found liable in payment, and not the subscribers, after they were exauctorated.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Arniston reported Bowie contra Wilson and other inhabitants of Culross. The question was, if the creditors in the bond followed the public faith of the town of Culross, in accepting this security, or if it was the party's meaning to bind the subscribers personally, and their heirs, seeing it obliged them to pay it conjunctly and severally. But the Lords having read the bond, and found it bore to be for the town's use, and that they were designed as Magistrates, and obliged themselves, and their successor's in office; and they being now functi and exauctorate, they found it only obliged the town, and not them, except for their proportions, in so far as they were members of the community.
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 157. Fountainhall, v. 1. p. 667.
