Subject_1 BILL OF EXCHANGE. Subject_2 DIVISION II.
The Porteur's Action against the Person upon whom the Bill is Drawn.
Subject_3 SECT. II.
Extraordinary Privileges of Bills.
Joseph Corrie, v. James Aitken, and Others
Date: 27 July 1785 Case No. No 106.
A proof allowed, that an indorsation of a bill had been fraudulently devised between the drawer and indorsee, in order to preclude the acceptor's defences.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Joseph Corrie sued James Aitken and others, for payment of a bill of exchange, which had been accepted by them in favour of Ninian Steel, and by him indorsed to the pursuer.
The defenders contended, That the indorsation had been fraudulently devised between the drawer and indorsee, in order to preclude their just defences; and they offered a proof of facts, sufficient to shew that this was the case.
Observed on the Bench: Though bills of exchange, when in the possession of fair and onerous indorsees, are, like bags of money, liable to no exception arising from the fraud of anterior holders; a collusive transference, such as is here alleged, ought not to be attended with the same privileges.
The Lords unanimously allowed the proof here offered.
Lord Ordinary, BraxfieldAct. HonymanAlt. H. Erskine, John Erskine.Clerk, Colquhoun.
Fol. Dic. v. 3. p. 83. Fac. Col. No 226. p. 353.
