If you found BAILII useful today, could you please make a contribution?
Your donation will help us maintain and extend our databases of legal information. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month donates, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
David Hodge, Copper-smith in Edinburgh, v. John Spiers, Merchant there
1729.
January. Case No. No 186.
An indorsation of a bill which had lain over several years, found to import no more than the warrandice of an assignation.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Spiers upon 19th June 1713, drew a bill upon Daniel Carmichael for L.6 Sterling payable on 1st December following. Without having done any diligence on the bill, Spiers indorsed it after several years. A date of March 1719 was affixed to the indorsation; and it was said, that Spiers had intrusted it blank indorsed to one Paterson, in order to receive payment; but that Paterson, in defraud of the trust reposed in him, had transferred it to Hodge. Hodge, after discussing Carmichael the acceptor, brought an action for recourse against Spiers the drawer.
Spiers pleaded in defence, That the bill having lain over for so many years had no privilege; and that Hodge, the apparent indorsee, was in no better situation than Paterson, to whom it had been intrusted, and who had improperly given it to him.
The Lord Ordinary pronounced this interlocutor, ‘Sustains the defence, and finds the bill pursued on bus lost the privilege of a bill of exchange; and that the indorsation imports only the warrandice of an assignation; and therefore recourse is not competent thereupon; and assoilzies, and decerns.’
To this interlocutor the. Court adhered, upon advising a petition and answers. See No 182. p. 1623.
Lord Ordinary, Royston.For Hodge, Jas Colvill.For Spiers, Pat. Grant.
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p 102. Session Papers in Advocates' Library.
