Robertson and Husband v. Holland

Martha Robertson, petitioner, sought payment on a bill from William Holland, respondent; at the same time, Archibald Ochiltree sought payment from Holland on a promissory note that was payable to Robertson but had been indorsed to Ochiltree. Robertson and Holland offered differing accounts of the facts surrounding the bill and promissory note. According to Robertson, Holland voluntarily granted the instruments on behalf of a friend, Charles Bolingbroke, who fled the country without paying his debts to Robertson. However, according to Holland, Robertson solicited the instruments so that she could show them to her creditors, without any intention that they would actually be paid. In Holland’s telling, a receipt signed by Robertson was intended to secure him against any demand for payment. In addition to disputing the facts, Robertson presented legal arguments against the receipt’s validity, which related to her status as a married woman. Holland argued that the bills were invalid because Robertson had paid no value for them. A number of depositions are included in the case documents.