Subject_1 SOLIDUM ET PRO RATA. Subject_2 SECT. XII.
Conjunct Acceptors or Drawers of a Bill.
Rutherford and Sangster v. Donaldson, Merchant in Kirwall in Orkney
Date: 18 February 1707 Case No. No. 53.
Found in conformity with M'Morland against Maxwell, No. 51. p. 14673.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The case is, Donaldson having furnished Rutherford and Sangster with some money, he draws a bill of exchange upon them, payable at Edinburgh, which both of them accepted; and having charged Rutherford thereon, he offers a suspension, on this reason, that, there being two obligants in the bill, and not mentioning them to be bound conjunctly and severally, he could not be charged for the whole, but only pro rata for the half; for in bonds where debtors are not bound conjunctly and severally, the debt divides, neither are they liable in solidum. Answered, Bills have a greater privilege, for the currency of trade, than bonds, and are regulated jure gentium, and by the custom of foreign mercantile nations, where every acceptor of a bill becomes liable in solidum. The Lords found so, and repelled the reason of suspension.
Fol. Dic. v. 2. p. 381. Fountainhall, v. 2. p. 350.
