|Blands v. Ewing and Company, and Dinwiddie
||25 Jul 1777
||Debtor and Creditor, England, Promissory Note
||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.
|Dame Robina Pollock, Spouse to Sir Hugh Crawford, and Sir Hugh, for his Interest v. Mary Porterfield, Widow of John Lockhart of Lee
||10 Mar 1779
||Jurisdiction, Female Succession, England
||In 1708, an Act of Parliament was passed enabling Dorothy Luckyn and James Lockhart to sell some lands the former had inherited. Upon their deaths the money from the sale was held in trust on behalf of their young heir, John Lockhart. Rather than petition the Court of Chancery to remove the tailzie from the trust, Lockhart's trustee, Robina Lockhart, removed the money to Scotland and conveyed it to her pupil upon his coming of age. When John Lockhart died a number of decades later his unentailed estate passed to his wife, Mary. John Lockhart's niece and her husband then brought action against Mary Lockhart and other trust-disponees, claiming the above-mentioned money as heirs of entail. They argued that the money in question still remained entailed under English law. The defenders, on the other hand, argued that the trust-money, having been removed to Scotland and conveyed to Lockhart, was therefore a sum of money belonging to him. Furthermore, they argued that even if there had originally been a case against the trustee's actions, it was no longer viable due to the negative prescription. To support this second argument, the defenders cited the Court's decision on Boyd Porterfield of Porterfield v. Joanna, Margaret, and Lilias Porterfields. The Court of Session determined that the negative prescription had cut out the claim of the substitute heirs, and the House of Lords upheld this decision.