Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Subject_1 BILL OF EXCHANGE.
Subject_2 DIVISION IV.

Possessor's recourse against the Drawer and Indorser.
Subject_3 SECT. II.

Negotiation of Bill.

Stirling Banking Company
v.
Duncanson's Representatives

Date: 20 February 1784
Case No. No 169.

An informal execution of a horning was not sustained as evidence of intimation of the dishonour of a bill.

Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy

Duncanson became indorser of a bill, without value, at the request of James Guild, to enable him the more readily to get it discounted. It was dated 20th December 1782, payable three months after date, drawn by Robert Campbell, and accepted by Guild for L. 90.

The Stirling Banking Company, who had discounted it, protested it in due time, and the protest was registered. Letters of horning were raised, and put into the hands of a messenger, who returned an execution of charge against Duncanson, dated 3d April 1783, the 12th day after the last day of grace.

Duncanson was in the bank office on 8th May, or, about six weeks after the bill had become due, when the diligence against him was mentioned. He brought a suspension on the ground, that no charge had been given to him, nor any information of the dishonour of the bill.

The Lord Ordinary ‘in respect the suspender had failed to propone improbation of the execution, repelled the reasons of suspension, and found the letters orderly proceeded.’

Improbation was now proponed; and the questions at issue came to be, Whether the execution was regular and valid; and, although irregular, whether, notwithstanding, it did not afford sufficient evidence of intimation of the dishonour, within fourteen days from the date of the protest.

The execution of the horning turned out to be informal. The name of one of the witnesses was forged; and the evidence of the witnesses who were examined, did not ascertain that any charge had been actually given.

The Court held, that even verbal intimation of the dishonour of a bill, if it were distinctly ascertained that such had been given, would have been sufficient; although private knowledge, without information from the holder, would not; but that here there was no evidence of intimation. The letters were suspended, and expences found due.

Ordinary, Lord Eskgrove. For Chargers, R. Hodgson Cay. For suspenders, D. Cathcart. Clerk, Menzies.

See Session Papers in Signet Hall.