A bill payable to the drawer at sight, accepted without date to the acceptance, found to bear interest from the date of the bill.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
David Kinloch of Gourdie pursued the Representatives of John Mercer, writer in Perth, for relief of a sum paid by his father, in which he had been bound for Mr Mercer.
Compensation was proponed on a bill drawn by Mr Mercer upon Gourdie, and accepted by him, payable to the drawer on sight; and interest was stated from the date, which was prior some years to the payment of the bond.
The Lord Ordinary, 15th December 1747, “found that the bill payable upon sight, being accepted by Gourdie, without any date to his acceptance, the demand of payment was made upon the date; and therefore, found that the bill behoved to bear annualrent from that time.”
Pleaded in a reclaiming bill, Annualrent is not due on a bill, till there be delay of payment, and here was no delay, as the bill was payable at sight, which must be understood of a fight posterior to the acceptance, for that it was not then payable, is evident from the bill being taken for security, instead of payment of the money.
Answered: The bill was taken, money perhaps not being ready, to constitute the debt and make it bear interest. It was payable at sight, which, in bills of exchange, is understood to be at presenting for acceptance; and the same must be understood here, nor can any subsequent demand be necessary. Had it been payable two days after sight, it would not have been a question that it bore interest two days after the acceptance, and the same rule ought to obtain here.
“The Lords found, That the bill bore interest from the date.”
Act. P. Wedderburn.Alt. Dav. Græme.Clerk, Gibson.
Fol. Dic. v. 3. p. 28. D. Falconer, v. 2. No 12. p. 13.*** The same case is thus reported by Lord Kilkerran:
In a process at the instance of Kinloch of Gourdie, against the Representatives of John Mercer: The defenders pleaded compensation, upon a bill drawn by Mercer upon Gourdie, payable to Mercer at sight, and the question was, From what time the bill bore annualrent ? Whether from the date, or from the demand of payment ?
It is an usual thing to draw bills payable at sight to a third party, in the same or a distant country, and the sight or acceptance is the term of payment; but it is an improper stile where the bill is drawn, payable to the drawer, especially (and which probably was the case here), where they are together at the time; yet, when they are so drawn, the words, at sight, cannot, in that case, have a different signification from what they have in the other; and therefore, the acceptance is the term of payment, and there is no need of any other demand.
Accordingly, the Lords “found annualrent due from the date of the bill.” For, being accepted without a new date, it was presumed to have been accepted of the date of the bill.
