Effect of Fraud on the part of the Drawer; and of False Description of the Value.
James Goodfellow v. Andrew Madder
Date: 27 July 1785 Case No. No 74.
The acceptor of a bill alleged he had been fraudulently induced to adhibit his subscription. His allegation was only general, not of particular facts, and circumstances. He insisted for a judicial examination of the holder of the bill, which was refuted.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Madder was charged with horning, at the instance of Goodfellow, for payment of a bill of exchange which had been accepted by him. He presented a bill of suspension, on this ground, that he had been fraudulently induced to adhibit his subscription to the acceptance, without full value, and he insisted for the charger's being judicially examined; urging, that, in this manner, he would have an opportunity, if the charger should advance what was not true, to disprove it, and so to invalidate his claim.
Observed on the Bench: Where circumstances of fraud are relevantly stated against the holder of a bill of exchange, and a proof offered, such a previous examination as is here required might be highly expedient, both for superseding the necessity of farther evidence, and for the better investigation of the truth. But to allow that method of proceeding, in consequence of general allegations like the present, would tend in a great measure to obstruct that free currency of bills of exchange, which is so essential to trade.
The Lord Ordinary found the letters orderly proceeded. And his judgment was affirmed by the Court, after advising a reclaiming petition for the suspender, with answers for the charger.
Lord Ordinary, Monboddo.Act. H. Erskine.Alt. Dalzell.Clerk, Home.
Fol. Dic. v. 3. p. 78. Fac. Col. No 227. p. 353.
