Legal Subject: Bill of Exchange

Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
Alexander Campbell v. John Campbell 1772 Slavery and enslaved people, West Indies and Atlantic trade, Debt, Bill of Exchange, Assignment, Interlocutor Alexander Campbell in Balole, Islay, pursued John Campbell, Tackman of Dunloskin, alleging forgery and improper bond cancellation, to which John Campbell filed answers. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Alexander Pagan and James Hunter v. Alexander Wylie 1792 Debt, Creditor, Bill of Exchange, Suspension, Aliment, Fraud Alexander Pagan and James Hunter, as suspenders, resisted Alexander Wylie’s claim upon a bill of exchange that had been altered from £8 to £84 after execution. Wylie, agent for the Paisley Union Bank, had discounted the bill for the higher amount and argued that the suspenders remained liable for the altered sum, while Pagan and Hunter maintained that such a material change precluded any charge against the original acceptor and indorser. The litigation centered on whether parties to a bill could be held responsible for a sum materially increased after the instrument had been signed.
Allan v. Surtees, Burdon, and Embleton 1806 Debt, Bankruptcy, Bill of Exchange, Sequestration, Prescription, Usury The executors of William Walker, Surtees, Burdon, and Embleton, pursued Robert Allan, a banker in Edinburgh, to recover statutory penalties for usurious transactions he had conducted with Sinclair and Williamson. Allan defended the action on the grounds that the claim was barred by prescription and failed to satisfy statutory requirements.
Archibald and James Robertson v. John Laird 1793 Insurance, Adjudication, Penalty, Debt, Bill of Exchange, Deviation Archibald and James Robertson, insurance brokers in Greenock, petitioned the Court to alter a prior interlocutor pronounced in their action against John Laird, merchant there, regarding whether a voyage alteration had voided an insurance policy. The pursuers contended that a liberty to call at an English port imported a liberty to discharge at Hull by statute and custom, while Laird answered that the alteration rendered the policy void and subsequently denied that calling at a port implied any right to discharge there. The parties exchanged replies and duplies on the construction of the policy's port liberties and the validity of the coverage.
Archibald Craig v. Emilia Brodie 1773 Succession, Debt, Adjudication, Aliment, Bill of Exchange, Sequestration Archibald Craig obtained a court order for payment of a debt owed to him by Emilia Brodie. After Emilia died, Craig sought to collect the funds from her daughter, Margaret Brodie, who had intromitted with the estate.
Arrot v. Coulter 1792 Debt, Bankruptcy, Bill of Exchange, Sequestration, Assignation, Creditor Petition by William Coulter, trustee on the Sequestrated Estate of James Elder, objecting to an assignment by Mr. Elder to Messrs Mansfield, Ramsay, and Co., which attempted to convey certain goods sent by Mr. Elder to Mr. Thomas Brunton, Merchant in Kingston for consignment. Mr. Coulter objects on three grounds: 1. That Mr. Elder made the assignment solely to preference certain creditors, including his brother-in-law Mr. Quinn and his friend, Mr. Arrot, surgeon in Edinburgh; 2. that the conveyance was not completed as Mr. Elder never delivered the assignment to Messrs Mansfield, Ramsay, and Co.; and 3. No intimation (legal notice) of the assignation was delivered that was sufficient to divest the cedent and complete the right of the assignee in a competition with other creditors.

Summary of Facts:
In 1787, Mr. Elder obtained a Cash credit of 200 £ Sterling from Sir William Forbes, James Hunter, and Co., cautioned by Mr. Quinn/Quynne/Gwyn (his brother-in-law) and Mr. Arrot. All the money was spent.
On May 22, 1789, Mr. Elder drew upon Mr. Arrot a bill for 130 £ Sterling, which was accepted by Mr. Arrot. On May 23, Mr. Elder discounted the bill with Messrs Mansfield, Ramsay, and Co., Bankers in Edinburgh. The bill was endorsed by Mr. Andrew, writer in Edinburgh. Mr. Elder used this money to close out his cash account with Sir William Forbes and Co, the account closed on June 27, 1789. During this time, Mr. Elder wrote an assignment, dated May 22, 1789, conveying the proceeds of a parcel of goods currently held by Mr. Brunton for consignment to Messrs Mansfield, Ramsay, and Co. to satisfy the debt owed for the advancement of the bill. This assignment was never delivered, but remained with Mr. Elder.
On August 5, 1789, Mr. Elder called a meeting of his creditors. On October 7, 1789, the Sequestration was applied for and granted.
After the sequestration, on November 12, 1789, Mr. Coulter, trustee of the estate, received a letter from Messrs William Sibbald and Co., merchants in Leith, who possessed sugar and rum owned by Mr. Elder, remitted from Mr. Brunton. Mr. Arrot and Mr. Andrew, as writer and endorser respectively of Mr. Elder's debt to Messrs Mansfield, Ramsay and Co., made a claim of preference for the goods, suggesting that the assignment written by Mr. Elder conveyed these goods to Messrs Mansfield and Ramsay. The trustee, Mr. Coulter, denied these claims.
On November 29, 1791, Mr. Coulter filed a petition to the Lords of Council and Session, made by Mr. Coulter, Trustee. Lord Ordinary Henderland heard the petition on December 7, 1791, and rendered judgment for Mr. Arrot.
This appeal follows.
Attorney of Thomas Cullen & Co v. David Philp 1792 Debt, Creditor, Bill of Exchange, Contract, Employment, Pactum Illicitum The attorney of Thomas Cullen and Company opposed David Philp, merchant in Boarhills, who as suspender pleaded that no action could lie upon bills alleged to have arisen from a smuggling transaction in which the pursuers were principals or accessories. The attorney replied that this plea of non-action for smuggled goods was unjust and unsupported by law or fact.
Baines v. Turnbull 1794 Debt, Bill of Exchange, Creditor, Bankruptcy, Interest, Factor Baines, the suspender, argued against Turnbull that he was not liable for bills dishonoured through no fault of his own. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Baird v. Allan and Steuart 1793 Debt, Bankruptcy, Cautioner, Bill of Exchange, Interlocutor, Reduction Respondents, Messrs Allan & Steuart, Bankers in Edinburgh, ask the court to consider 1. Competency of the appeal and 2. Merits of the question. This case was in litigation for almost a decade leading up to this appeal. In 1783, Mr. Moffat, grazier in Portsburgh, bought a parcel of cattle from Mr. Guild with a bill of 150 £ sterling, payable in three months. Mr. Guild brought the bill to Respondents, Messrs Allan & Steuart, Bankers in Edinburgh. Respondents discounted the bill, after Mr. Moffat swore to its validity. Petitioner John Baird and Mr. John Newlands were Cautioners for Mr. Moffat. When the bill became due, Mr. Moffat refused to pay, alleging the Guilds had forged copies and discounted bills at other banks, bringing the sum of money owed to well over the original 150 £ sterling. Mr. Moffat later died, bankrupt, before the valid bill was ever found. The case was heard before Lord Justice Clerk Glenlee in 1785, Lord Stonefield Ordinary in 1792, Lord Ankerville in 1790, Lord Dreghorn and Lord Abercromby in 1792. Despite multiple judgments for Messrs Allan & Steuart, Mr. Baird still challenges the validity of the bill, and appeals the judgments against him as cautioner on the bill.
Belch [Belsh] v. Wilson and Son 1788 Arrestment, Creditor, Bill of Exchange, Forgery, Debt, Sequestration Peter Belsh, a merchant in Stirling, charged William Wilson and Son, merchants in Bannockburn, over a discounted bill involving indorsers. Wilson and Son suspended the charge and subsequently submitted an information contending that their subscription to the promissory note was a forgery and therefore void.
Blands v. Ewing and Company, and Dinwiddie 1777 Debtor and Creditor, England, Debt, Bill of Exchange, Statute, Creditor This case was about the liability of individuals who endorsed a dishonored promissory note. Walter Ewing and Company purchased the note from Robert Dinwiddie, a bank cashier, and remitted it to Bland and Company in England. After the note’s maker, William Mowat, failed to pay, Bland and Company sued Robert Dinwiddie and Ewing and Company, both of whom had earlier endorsed the note. The defenders claimed that they could not be held liable because Bland and Company did not properly notify them that the note had been dishonoured. The cause came before Lord Monboddo, who assoilzied (absolved) the defenders. Bland and Company then submitted a petition to the Court asking them to overturn this decision. The Court adhered to Monboddo's interlocutor.
Campbell v. Campbell 1786 Contract, Debt, Aliment, Bill of Exchange, Roup, Sale This case was a dispute over the sale of a horse. The pursuer, Dugald Campbell of Craignish, alleged that Neil Campbell of Duntroon sold him a horse that turned out to be lame. Case documents include a number of depositions by witnesses.
Campbell v. Laidlaw 1796 Debt, Creditor, Bill of Exchange, Sequestration, Partnership, Interlocutor Robert Campbell, as pursuer, petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor suspending his charge for a bill of exchange he had accepted without value in the action against Laidlaw, the defender. Robert Corbet thereafter informed the Court that the bill had been accepted for the accommodation of Archibald M'Ausland rather than Milligan and Co.
Charles Stewart, Writer to the Signet v. Andrew Miller, Depute Clerk to the Bills 1799 Aliment, Debt, Creditor, Succession, Bill of Exchange, Contract Defender Andrew Miller purchased the office of Deputy Clerk to the Bills from the Principal Clerks, Sir Robert Anstruther and Thomas Smith. While arranging the purchase, he met with Anstruther’s agent, pursuer Charles Stewart, W.S., who proposed to advance Miller one half of the purchase price in return for two-fifths of the deputy clerk’s fees collected during Miller’s tenure. Unbeknownst to Miller, Stewart was transacting on behalf of an undisclosed principal later revealed to be the son of Sir Robert Anstruther.

After Miller assumed his new office, the fee revenues dropped significantly and he was forced to borrow £250 from Charles Stewart. Subsequently, the court passed an act of sederunt allowing Miller to exact certain additional fees and apply them “to his use alone.” However, Miller failed to repay Stewart, who brought an action to recover the debt. In response, Miller presented a bill of suspension intended to try whether Mr. Stewart (or his principal) was entitled to 2/5 of the old fees, and whether he could claim any share of the new fees. The case documents contain information on fee revenues, activity levels in the Court of Session, and previous financial arrangements involving deputy clerks.
Cowan v. Farie and Others 1781 Sequestration, Debt, Creditor, Bill of Exchange, Arrestment, Interdiction Robert Cowan and Company, creditors on a bill accepted by John Farie, sought to have Farie’s movable effects sequestrated. Cowan & Co. argued that sequestration was appropriate when a debtor’s movable estate was the subject of a poinding or when the debtor was imprisoned; both criteria applied to Farie. The respondents opposed sequestration on several grounds, including the following: (1) Farie received no value for the bill; (2) Farie was under interdiction when he accepted the bill; and (3) Farie’s movable estate was exhausted by higher-ranked creditors. When the case was argued, the parties agreed to suspend the proceeding while the respondents found caution for Farie’s debt. However, after a dispute about the form of the caution, Cowan & Co. submitted a second petition for sequestration and expenses.
Craig and Hyslop v. Spence, et al 1793 Insurance, Ships, Jurisdiction, Bill of Exchange, Evidence, Jettison James Craig and William Hyslop pursued John Spence and other Edinburgh underwriters for a partial loss on a cargo of wheat, petitioning the Court to address an interlocutor that had found the underwriters liable. The defenders answered, denying that the vessel had stranded and contending that the damage did not constitute general average. Hislop subsequently petitioned the Court regarding the policy’s exclusion of average loss for perishable goods and the applicability of the stranding exception to the loss.
Creditors of Currie v. Geddes 1793 Debt, Creditor, Prescription, Bill of Exchange, Trustee, Trustees The creditors of Currie, represented by their common agent in the sale and ranking of the Estate of Newlaw, petitioned the Court to alter Lord Swinton’s interlocutor. The respondents contested the creditors’ attempt to rank debts against Currie’s estate, citing partial payments and post-prescription markings as evidence of debt continuity.
Creditors of Hay v. Fleming 1793 Debt, Creditor, Adjudication, Bill of Exchange, Interlocutor, Bankruptcy James Fleming, defender in the action by the creditors of Hay, petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor that had excluded him from an adjudication upon the debtor’s Scottish property, maintaining that his claim was liquidated by bill and sufficiently authenticated by protest and affidavit notwithstanding the original instrument’s absence abroad. He sought to overturn the Inner-House ruling and obtain remit to the Lord Ordinary to lead further proof of his debt’s verity.
Creditors of Newlands v. Mackenzie 1792 Creditor, Debt, Proof, Arrestment, Reduction, Bill of Exchange Andrew Mackenzie petitioned the Court to alter the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor requiring him to produce title-deeds before receiving payment of his account. The creditors of Newlands answered that Mackenzie ought to be paid without producing the writings.
Curtis, et al. v. Chippendale 1794 Bankruptcy, Debt, Sequestration, Creditor, Compensation, Bill of Exchange William Curtis, Ebenezer Maitland, and John Newman Caussmaker petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor regarding Edward Chippendale's claim as trustee on the sequestrated estate of William Macalpin and Company. The parties disputed whether Scottish law on compensation ought to be altered to conform to English practice, with the respondent defending the established Scottish doctrine and the petitioners arguing that Chippendale's claim was not well founded under that law.
David and Hugh Mitchell v. William Ferguson 1779 Arrestment, Bill of Exchange, Assignation, Creditor, Disposition, Debt These case documents constitute a prelude to the reported case of David and Hugh Mitchell v. William Ferguson. In 1769, Agnes Carsan purchased a house in Ayr from William Donald. Because she believed her son-in-law to be holding money for the house on her behalf, no bills or securities were filed, and the disposition of the house was held by James Fergusson, Provost and writer in Ayr. Later William Donald became bankrupt and arrestments (securities) were laid in the hands of Carsan and Hair-Campbell. William Ferguson, claiming that he had paid Donald for the price of the house on behalf of Carsan, brought action against Carsan for either a disposition of the house or repayment. On March 3, 1779 the Court ruled that Ferguson was entitled to either the price or a disposition on the house. Donald's creditors, David and Hugh Mitchell, later brought action, in competition with Fergusson for rights to the house. On February 13, 1781 the Court determined that the infeftment (legal claim) possessed by the Mitchells was preferable to the personal right claimed by Fergusson.
Davies, Jones, & Co. v. William Young 1786 Debt, Aliment, Oath, Interlocutor, Action, Bill of Exchange William Young petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Monboddo, claiming expenses, and Davies, Jones, & Co. answered the petition. The merchants defended against Young's claim for expenses and asserted that he had commissioned and received the six hats in dispute.
Dewar v. Howieson 1788 Aliment, Succession, Debt, Bill of Exchange, Assignation, Creditor Mrs Nisbet and her husband petitioned the Court of Session to alter the Lord Justice-Clerk's interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Douglas v. Lord Justice Clerk's Interlocutor 1788 Debt, Arrestment, Bill of Exchange, Sequestration, Prescription, Interlocutor William Douglas of Luss, Esquire petitioned the Court of Session to alter a recent interlocutor pronounced by the Lord Justice Clerk. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Drew v. Calder 1778 Bill (Financial Instrument), Credit, Debt, Aliment, Bill of Exchange, Sequestration Thomas Calder died owing money to his brother-in-law, Charles Drew, and to Drew's brother, Robert. When Charles Drew went bankrupt, Robert Drew pursued John Calder of Davidstoun, brother of the late Thomas Calder, for sums owed. Lord Monboddo, the Lord Ordinary, ruled that John Calder was indeed liable for his brother's share of the debts, but Calder petitioned the Court of Session contesting this decision. He argued that the various bills granted by Thomas Calder to the Drew brothers were not for value received. Rather, he argued that these bills represented lines of credit that were never spent. Robert Drew answered that the bills were clearly given for value received, and that John Calder was merely trying to draw out the litigation process in order to postpone settling his brother's debts.
Duff v. Innes 1770 Debt, Arrestment, Cautioner, Succession, Bill of Exchange, Prescription Lauchlan Duff pursued Innes for sums due under two obligatory missives dated 1758, arguing that the defender remained liable despite a defence of septennial prescription. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Duncan v. Maclintock and Smith 1778 Copartnership, Trade, Bill of Lading, Debt, Arrestment, Bill of Exchange In November 1774, Robert Maclintock Jr. freighted the brigantine Rainbow to carry goods to Virginia and return a cargo of wheat. His father and David Smith joined in the adventure, and the three wrote Virginia merchants Charles Duncan and John Brown, empowering them to draw on Maclintock jr. for the price. According to the defenders of this action, Smith and Maclintock Sr., in the summer of 1775, when the Rainbow returned to Clyde with the cargo of wheat, Maclintock jJr. informed his co-adventurers that the cargo was not for them, but solely for himself. Two years later he stopped paying his bills and left the country, and the defenders received a demand from Charles Duncan for the unpaid value of the Rainbow's cargo. Duncan, the pursuer of this action, argued that as co-adventurers the defenders were liable for the price of the cargo, and that the bill had been drawn solely on Maclintock jr.'s account out of secrecy: Maclintock Sr. was a principal in the Merchant Bank, and it was convenient for him that his name did not appear on the bill. Duncan further accused the defenders of obliterating evidence of a copartnership contained in documents possessed by Betty Maclintock, the aunt of Maclintock Jr. The defenders argued, on the other hand, that they were not co-partners with the younger Maclintock, and were therefore not liable for his debts. The bailies of Glasgow, who first heard the case, repelled the defense, and Lord Braxfield refused the defenders' bill of advocation. They then petitioned the Court to compel Lord Braxfield to pass the bill.
Dunlop and Montgomery v. Peter 1781 Power of Attorney, Debt, Succession, Creditor, Arrestment, Bill of Exchange This case was about an individual’s authority to act as attorney for Walter Peter, a Virginia merchant, in a case pending in Scotland. Messrs. Dunlop and Montgomery, the pursuers, sued Peter for payment of a debt that he allegedly owed them. When George Anderson appeared on Walter’s behalf, the pursuers claimed that he had no authority to do so. Although Anderson produced a power of attorney from Peter, the pursuers argued that it existed for the limited purpose of allowing Anderson to handle Peter’s succession to a particular estate.
Dunmore and Company v. Allan, et al 1786 Ships, Insurance, Warranty, Adjudication, Bill of Exchange, Contract Robert Dunmore and Company, merchants in Glasgow, raised an action against Richard Allan and other insurers in Glasgow and Archibald Campbell and other insurers in Greenock regarding a maritime insurance contract and questions of convoy obligations and warranty terms. The merchants petitioned the Court to overturn an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Braxfield, and the insurers answered the petition.
Eimbeke v. Morison, Taylor, and Company and Buchanan, Morison, and Company 1777 Trade, Foreign Trade, Wheat, Debt, Aliment, Bill of Exchange Buchanan, Morison, and Company was a trading firm with operations in Glasgow and Greenock. Two of the company's partners in Greenock, William Morison and James Taylor, were also partners of a separate firm, named Morison, Taylor, and Company. In the fall of 1774, Morison, Taylor, and Company commissioned George Henry Eimbeke, Hamburgh merchant, to send them several shipments of wheat and other grains. One of these shipments was placed on the George, a trading vessel owned by Buchanan, Morison, and Company. The latter company paid Eimbeke for half of this shipment, and Morison, Taylor, and Company were invoiced for the second half. The George arrived in Bristol in May 1775 and the wheat was discovered to have overheated; it was later sold at a great loss. Eimbeke brought action against the two firms, suing for the unpaid half of the George's wheat shipment. While Buchanan, Morison, and Company claimed that Morison, Taylor, and Company had expressly ordered Eimbeke to send them a shipment of wheat on the George, the latter company argued that no such order had ever been given. On November 14, 1777 the Court pronounced Buchanan, Morison, and Company liable for the value of the wheat and expenses. They then submitted a reclaiming petition, which was refused, according to handwritten marginalia on the case documents.
Elliot v. M'Kay 1777 Onerous Indorsation, Debt, Bill of Exchange, Prescription, Compensation, Assignation In January 1772, Archibald Graham drew a bill upon Hugh Mackay, payable on Whitsunday of that year. According to the pursuer, David Elliot, Archibald Graham later endorsed the bill to James Campbell as compensation. This bill was then endorsed to William Graham, who later endorsed it to David Elliot. No demand was made on Mackay's bill until December 1773, 18 months after the term of payment. At this time David Elliot brought action against Hugh Mackay, who attested that he was not aware that the bill had been endorsed over, and pleaded compensation. The cause came before Lord Pitfour, who assoilzied (absolved) Mackay in February 1775. Elliot represented against this interlocutor, and the cause was remitted to Lord Auchinleck. Auchinleck reported the cause to the full court. In January 1777, the Court found compensation to be valid, and assoilzied Mackay. In a petition responding to this ruling, Elliot argued that other mercantile countries held much longer expiration dates for bills, and allowing compensation for a bill held by an onerous endorsee would be destructive for business. In July 1777, the Court agreed with the petitioner, and overturned its previous ruling.
Elliot v. Romanis 1790 Bill of Exchange, Execution, Debt, Prescription, Creditor, Diligence Helen Elliot pursued Robert Romanis, a Lauder writer, for loss resulting from an officer’s conduct and the negligence of others. Romanis petitioned to alter the court’s interlocutor to deny liability, and subsequently raised an action against John GrahamsLie. GrahamsLie petitioned to be assoilzied from that action, and Romanis answered that his own liability arose from his own omission rather than GrahamsLie’s conduct, noting that the execution had been obtained by others.
Forbes, Hunter, and Company v. Edinburgh Life Assurance Company 1829 Insurance, Contract, Debt, Bill of Exchange, Representation, Aliment Sir William Forbes, James Hunter, and Company, bankers, raised an action against the Edinburgh Life Assurance Company to recover £3000 sterling payable under a policy of assurance. The defenders resisted payment, asserting that the policy was void due to misrepresentation and the non-statement of material facts at the time of effecting the insurance. The cause subsequently proceeded to a Bill of Exceptions for the defenders.
Fraser, Reid and Sons v. Lancaster and Jamieson 1793 Arrestment, Bill of Exchange, Diligence, Citation, Horning, Statute Fraser, Reid and Sons claimed preferential rights to goods held in Coats’s custody, asserting priority based on protested bills for specific cargoes and challenging arrestments later laid by Lancaster and Jamieson. The defenders lodged duplies disputing the validity of the arrestments and the question of preference, responding to the pursuers’ replies.
Gentle and Gentle v. Belch 1787 Debt, Creditor, Aliment, Bill of Exchange, Forgery, Reduction Robert Gentle and William Gentle, as pursuers, argued against defender Belch that thirteen bills of exchange bearing their names were forged and void. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
George Anderson v. James Stephen, Andrew Jamieson, and others 1766 Election contest, Aliment, Proof, Debt, Bill of Exchange, Property The complainers in this case alleged that the counsellors of Crail were under the influence of Sir John Anstruther and that Sir John's representatives sold meal to the trades at a special price in order to bribe certain men before the borough's election.
George Brown v. Alexander Campbell 1794 Creditor, Debt, Bankruptcy, Aliment, Cautioner, Bill of Exchange George Brown pursued Alexander Campbell regarding the validity of a missive-letter for the sale of heritage, debating whether the writing was null and void under the Act of 1681 for lack of statutory solemnities notwithstanding acknowledgment of subscription. Craigie appeared for the pursuer and petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor and decern in terms of the libel, or alternatively to ordain the defender to answer the facts and produce the correspondence. Erskine countered with a memorial maintaining that the missive was ineffectual for want of requisite formalities.
George v. Christie 1788 Sequestration, Creditor, Bankruptcy, Debt, Bill of Exchange, Aliment George sought restitution of barley he had delivered to Alexander Dewar, an insolvent debtor who was actively seeking sequestration, alleging that Dewar had acted in mala fide. William Christie, a Stirling merchant, petitioned to alter the court’s interlocutor, asserting that his bill for the barley equated to cash and that he stood as a common creditor. The creditors of Dewar’s sequestrated estate answered Christie’s condescendence, contending that the grain had been fraudulently delivered to the bankrupt.
Glass v. Kelly, &c 1776 Vestita Viro, Debt, Arrestment, Succession, Bill of Exchange, Cautioner James Rae left his wife and daughter, Agnes Kelly and Agnes Rae, a £40 owed by John Murray, junior. Kelly's second husband, William Duncan, being drowned in debt, renounced his right over his wife's effects. One of Duncan's debts was jointly shared with Bailie Andrew Glass, and held by David Loch. Loch obtained a decree from the High Court of Admiralty against the two, and Bailie Glass had Duncan imprisoned in the St. Andrews Tolbooth until he could pay his share of the debt. In order to free her husband from jail, Kelly and Rae endorsed the above-mentioned bill to Glass. Duncan then signed his furniture over to Rae as security. After paying Loch Duncan's share of the debt, Glass attempted to collect payment of Murray's bill, but was unable. He then raised an action before the Sheriff of Fife against Murray, Kelly, and Rae, charging the latter two with liability for the value of the bill. He argued that value was given to Kelly and Rae for the endorsement: the release of Duncan from prison, and the above-mentioned furniture. The Sheriff found Kelly and Rae liable, but Lord Covington and the Court determined that as a vestita viro (married woman), Kelly's endorsement of the bill was null and void.
Gloag v. Thomson and Others 1793 Debt, Usury, Bill of Exchange, Interest, Aliment, Creditor Gloag petitioned the Court of Session to alter the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor, which had assoilzied Thomson and the other defenders from an action for repayment of a £50 counter-bill. He subsequently petitioned again to alter the Court's subsequent interlocutor in the same cause. The representatives of James Thomson argued that the £50 bill was valid and that a prior bill for £107 10s had been paid.
Graham v. Gillespie and Company 1794 Debt, Fraud, Creditor, Bill of Exchange, Suspension, Onerous Indorsation Archibald Graham, cashier to the Thistle Bank, pursued William Gillespie and Company for payment of bills of exchange that had been materially altered after acceptance. Graham contended that the defenders remained liable for the raised amounts, while Gillespie and Company maintained that the bills, originally accepted for £58 10s. and £50, had been fraudulently raised to £458 10s. and £450 by William Robb without their knowledge or authority. The case turned on whether acceptors are bound to pay increased sums when bills have been fraudulently altered without their consent.
Grant v. Thomson 1776 Debt, Arrestment, Bankruptcy, Bill of Exchange, Diligence, Adjudication Pursuer John Grant was a creditor of John Taylor, who became insolvent and unable to repay Grant. Grant obtained two letters of horning against Taylor for his failure to repay. Grant learned that defender George Thomson, an innkeeper in Leith, was a debtor of Taylor. Grant used arrestments to bring an action against Thomson for the sum he owed to Taylor. Thomson had granted two bills payable to Taylor for the sum owed, which were then indorsed by Taylor to defender Alexander Ogilvie as clerk of the Edinburgh rope-work company. (Taylor owed money to this company for the purchase of ropes and sails.) The defenders argued that sums due by bill were not subject to arrestment. Grant conceded that this was true in the case of a bona fide indorsee. Grant maintained, however, that the bills were subject to arrestment where transactions were used to shield a debtor's assets from creditors. The defenders responded that the transactions at issue were bona fide and arms-length transactions.
Greig v. Johnston 1782 Aliment, Proof, Debt, Bill of Exchange, Tack, Witness Helen Greig sued Archibald Johnston for maintenance of a child alleged to be his. Johnston argued that Greig had already discharged her maintenance claim as part of a settlement agreement. Greig denied having discharged the claim, and challenged the evidence offered by Johnson.
Haig v. Lord Swinton's Interlocutor 1786 Debt, Creditor, Succession, Arrestment, Passive Title, Bill of Exchange James Haig petitioned against Lord Swinton's interlocutor, asserting that he had incurred no universal passive title as a vitious intromitter. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Hamilton v. Cunningham 1792 Debt, Bill of Exchange, Insurance, Prescription, Interlocutor, Creditor John Hamilton of Barns pursued Sir William Cunningham of Robertland, Baronet, and William Campbell of Fairfield, as representatives of the deceased Sir William Cunningham and William Campbell, together with William Ballantyne and James Hunter, for debts which the defenders contended were barred by prescription. Hamilton petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor against an Inner-House interlocutor, and after the defenders answered, a report maintained that the defenders' books showed debts still owing despite the prescription plea. Hamilton subsequently answered the defenders' petition maintaining that his claims remained valid.
Hamilton v. Hunter and Co. 1782 Contract, Insurance, Interlocutor, Action, Debt, Bill of Exchange This case was about the purchase of an insurance policy by a broker. Robert Hunter and Company, in Saltcoats, asked James Hamilton, an insurance broker in Glasgow, to procure an insurance policy for a ship sailing to the Firth of Clyde. Hunter and Co. specified that the policy should not cost more than eight guineas per cent. However, Hamilton was unable to find insurance at this price, so he procured a policy at nine guineas per cent, paying the difference himself. He then wrote Hunter and Co. to inform them of the action he had taken. In the letter, Hamilton stated that if Hunter and Co. did not approve of the policy, they could have it vacated by sending a return letter "in course of post." Hunter and Co. wrote back two days later to reject the policy; in the meantime, the ship in question had arrived safely. Hamilton sued for payment of the premium. In response, Hunter and Co. argued that their rejection of the policy was valid.
Hamilton v. MacTaggart 1793 Debt, Bankruptcy, Creditor, Bill of Exchange, Sequestration, Deed William M'Taggart answered the petition of Messrs. Hamilton and Co. and James Provan and Co., who claimed that a sale of goods was void under the 1696 Act. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Hammond, Birket, and Smith v. Marshall 1784 Arrestment, Debt, Bill of Exchange, Creditor, Aliment, Sequestration Hammond, Birket, and Smith, pursuers, attempted to arrest (legally claim) funds in the hands of Claud Marshall, a writer in Glasgow, on the ground that Claud possessed funds belonging to their debtor William Marshall. William was in Tobago, and he had sent a bill to Claud with instructions to apply it for the support of William’s daughters. Hammond, Birket, and Smith argued that Claud possessed the bill when the arrestment was used. Claud responded that he had sent the bill off to London by that time, and that payment was made to William’s children.
Harrisons v. Chippendale 1794 Bankruptcy, Debt, Sequestration, Trustee, Creditor, Bill of Exchange The trustee argued that the Harrisons' claims were invalid for lack of indorsement and because they were founded upon post-bankruptcy acknowledgments. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Harrisons v. Chippendale, Trustee 1792 Bankruptcy, Compensation, Creditor, Bill of Exchange, Assignation, Debt Harrisons, as assignees of Gibson and Johnson, claimed entitlement to rank on the estate of William M'Alpine and Company for the full amount of bills held as security for advances made to the firm. Edward Chippendale, trustee of the estate, argued that this claim was compensated by the value of bills which Gibson and Johnson had accepted and indorsed to M'Alpine and Company. The dispute thus turned on whether the assignees could recover the full amount of their secured debt or whether it was subject to compensation by the firm's separate claims against them.

Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 1118)