The subscription of the drawer, held to be an essential requisite.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Upon the verbal report of the Lord Elchies, How far a bill thus conceived was valid? ‘Pay to me, John Bell, L. 50 Sterling, value received,’ addressed to and accepted by James Hall; but neither signed by John Bell, nor of his hand-writing:—It was found, ‘That the bill being neither signed by the drawer, nor of ‘his hand-writing, was null.’
This was not upon the act 1696, concerning blank writs; for the alleged drawer's name being in the body of the bill, obviated that objection; but, on this ground, that a bill is a mutual contract between drawer and acceptor; and in all mutual contracts, both parties must be bound; and therefore it is a null contract, unless the consent of the drawer be interposed, as well as of the acceptor. And this being the ground on which the decision proceeded, it was, in the reasoning, agreed, That, as the creditor's name was in the bill, had it either been of his hand-writing, or, if the drawer's name had been adjected, before it had been produced in judgment, it would have been good: In like manner, as a bond duly signed before witnesses, but not subscribed by the witnesses before delivery, may, thereafter, be subscribed by them, at any time before production in judgment. Whereas, where the objection lies to a bill, upon the act 1696, the defect cannot be supplied after delivery. [This seems to be the same case with No 37.]
