BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
You are here:BAILII >>
Databases >>
Scottish Court of Session Decisions >>
Douglas, Heron, and Company, v Robert Alexander. [1781] Mor 1606 (13 February 1781)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1781/Mor0401606-166.html
Subject_1 BILL OF EXCHANGE. Subject_2 DIVISION IV.
Possessor's recourse against the Drawer and Indorser.
Subject_3 SECT. II.
Negotiation of Bill.
Douglas, Heron, and Company, v. Robert Alexander
Date: 13 February 1781 Case No. No 166.
Found in conformity with the above.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Alexander, for behoof of Douglas, Heron, and Company, indorsed a bill to John Christian, their cashier at Ayr, and who was likewise one of their numerous partners. Being dishonoured, it was regularly protested; and a note, under the hand of Christian, appearing on the back of it, bore that the dishonour had been duly intimated to Alexander. Diligence having followed, a suspension was railed; in the course of which process, Christian emitted an oath, corroborative of the above-mentioned marking.
Pleaded for the suspender: Christian, being not only the cashier, but likewise a partner of the Company, his testimony is inadmissible.
Answered for the chargers: It is a method universally received in mercantile practice, to notify the dishonour of bills verbally, or by a card, without the writing of a formal letter, a copy of which is to be entered in the letter-book. Hence, if cashiers, or other persons intrusted with the affairs of merchants, be not admitted, as habile witnesses, it will often be impossible to obtain any proof in such a case; and it would be very hard, were the possession of a small share in the flock of a company to disqualify them. Upon these grounds the Court determined the question between sir George Colebrooke and Co. and William Douglas and Co. (supra) a case, in every particular, similar to the present.
The Court ‘found the intimation sufficiently proved.’
Lord Ordinary, Kennet.Act. Wight.Alt. Macormick.Clerk, Tait.
Fol. Dic. v. 3. p. 90. Fac. Col. No 34. p. 59.
