Subject_1 BILL OF EXCHANGE. Subject_2 DIVISION IV.
Possessor's recourse against the Drawer and Indorser.
Subject_3 SECT. II.
Negotiation of Bill.
Sir George Colebrook and Company, v. William and James Douglas
Date: 18 July 1780 Case No. No 165.
The oath of an agent for a company received in supplement of proof arising from a private noting of his own, relative to due negotiation by the Company, of a bill, of which the agent himself was an indorser.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
A bill, drawn on a house in London, had been indorsed by William and James Douglas in Glasgow to Simon Brown, agent in the same town for Douglas, Heron, and Company, when it was again indorsed to sir George Colebrooke and Company in London.
The bill being presented to the drawees, first for acceptance, and afterwards for payment, both were refused; upon which sir George Colebrooke used diligence against William and James Douglas, who brought a suspension of it on this ground, that due intimation of the dishonour had not been made to them.
The chargers, on the contrary, affirmed, that timeous notice of both refusals had been given to the suspenders by Simon Brown, their door-neighbour, being communicated to him by the cashier at Edinburgh, who had received it from London; in support of which averment, they produced the cashier's letters to Brown, with a notandum adjected to each of them in Brown's hand-Writing, bearing, that he had read or shown them to the suspenders.
And they contended, That this evidence ought to be held as sufficient; at least, that it might be rendered complete by the oath of Brown.
The suspenders, on the other hand, insisted, That such informal notings were neither entitled to credit of themselves, as they could not be admitted to prove their own dates, nor could they receive any support from the evidence of Brown, who being likewise one of the chargers' indorsers, and subject to their claim of recourse, was plainly a party in the cause.
Answered: Brown had no patrimonial interest in the matter, which he transacted merely as an agent for other persons,
The Court required information concerning the practice of merchants in their manner of intimating the dishonour of bills to such indorsers or drawers as live in their near neighbourhood. This enquiry was made of two respectable banking-houses in Edinburgh,* whose answer was to this effect:
“When we receive notice from London of the dishonour of a bill indorsed to us by a neighbour, our usual way of acquainting him of it is either by a Card or letter. When we make the intimation by a card, we do not think it necessary to keep a copy of it, not suspecting that a neighbour, with whose character we are acquainted, will dispute the intimation; and knowing, if he should dispute it, that the delivery of the card can be proved by the bearer of it. But if we have any reason to think a greater degree of caution necessary, we make the intimation by letter, and insert it in our copy-book of letters.”
The Lords were of opinion, That the alleged mode of intimating the dishonour was sufficiently formal; and that if the evidence arising from the markings
* sir William Forbes, James Hunter, and Company; and Mansfield, Ramsay, and Company.
affixed by Brown to the cashier's letters were corroborated by the oath of the said Brown, this would be satisfactory evidence of such intimation. They therefore allowed Brown to be examined; and his deposition confirming the afore-mentioned allegation,
‘The Lords found the letters orderly proceeded.’
Lord Reporter, Justice Clerk.Act. Wight.Alt. Arch. Campbell.
Fol. Dic. v. 3. p. 85. Fac. Col. No. 118. p. 217.
