| Elliot v. M'Kay |
1777
|
Onerous Indorsation |
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. |
| 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. |
| Thomas Dunlop and Others v. Alexander Spiers and Others |
1778
|
Onerous Indorsation, In Solidum |
This is one of several cases resulting from the bankruptcy of James Dunlop, Jr. After the Court ruled decisively that the trustees of Dunlop, Sr., could be ranked among Dunlop, Jr.'s creditors, the surviving trustees of Dunlop, Sr., and others sued to recover payment of a bill for £1500 that Dunlop, Jr. owed to the Royal Bank of Scotland. They had been forced to pay it because Dunlop, Sr. had been a co-obligant on the bill. Although the bill had been partially paid, Dunlop, Sr.'s trustees requested that they be ranked for the full amount of the bill. The Court ruled that the pursuers were only entitled to be ranked for the remaining balance of the bill. See the case, Dunlop, and Other Trustees of Carlyle and Co v. Spiers and Others (1776) for more on the larger dispute. |
| Watson v. Stewart |
1777
|
Bill (Financial Instrument), Onerous Indorsation, Arrestment |
This case, which stretched from November 1776 to February 1780, concerned a bill for £14 sterling drawn by William Stevenson and accepted by James Stewart. Both parties went to elaborate lengths to disappoint the other in their attempts to recover and argue for compensation of this bill. After Stevenson endorsed the bill to James Watson, the latter allegedly secured an arrestment (detention) of Stewart's horses and chaise at the Golf House in Leith. The Court ultimately ruled in favor of Stewart, the suspender, declaring Watson, the charger, liable for expenses. |
