Robert Yuille v. James Richardson, Merchant in Glasgow
Date: 25 July 1699 Case No. No. 20.
Within what time summary diligence on a bill is competent.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
A bill of exchange for £.200 Sterling is drawn by Mr. Richardson on Mr. Kite, a corn-factor at London, payable to Yuille. It is dated the 15th October, 1698, and payable at a month's sight thereafter. It is not protested for not payment till the 20th April, 1699, against Kite, and the 27th of April against Richardson, the drawer, and it then is registered, and Richardson charged; who suspends, That, by the act of Parliament 1681, bills must be registered within six months after their date, otherwise no summary execution can pass thereupon; but ita est this was protested after the six months, and so the charge is unwarrantable. Answered, The act of Parliament distinguishes two cases; either it is protested for non-acceptance, and then it must be registered within six months of the date of the bill, or for not payment, and then within the term the bill falls due: But so it is, this protest was for non-payment, and the protest and registration being within six months of the day at which it was payable, it was both legal and warrantable. Replied, There ought to have been a protest for non-acceptance first, which was not here; and, by supine negligence for five months, you suffered the debt to perish, by Kite's breaking medio tempore, and therefore should not recur against me, the drawer. Duplied, Where a bill is not payable at sight, but at a day, there is no need, by the custom of merchants, to protest that bill for non-acceptance, but only for not payment; and I was not in mora, because, by your letter, you was willing to have given me the bill on another. The Lords found the registration and charge warrantable; but desired to try what was Mr. Kite's condition at the time the bill fell due, if it could have been recovered, then, if demanded, and if it was lost by the delay, and he only broke afterwards.
