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 £1, 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!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Robert Stuart v William Blackwood. [1684] 2 Brn 67 (4 December 1684) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1684/Brn020067-0176.html |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR ROGER HOG OF HARCARSE.
Date: Robert Stuart
v.
William Blackwood
4 December 1684 Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
James Denholm and William Blackwood having, by their letter of commission, ordered Robert Stuart, factor, to send them home fifteen tuns of wine, and draw bills on them for the value; the wine accordingly was sent home, and bills drawn on both of them, but only presented to and accepted by Denholm, who intromitted with the whole wine. Six years after, these bills were protested for notpayment, against Denholm, without any intimation to Blackwood: Mr Stuart pursued Blackwood as Denholm's copartner. Alleged for the defender, That he must be free, no diligence being done against him, nor the bills or protest so much as intimated to him all this time, till now that the other copartner is bankrupt.
Answered, The pursuer might pursue, or draw upon either of the socii, and the defender could not deny but he knew the bills were drawn upon both, and the wine came home, conform to their joint commission; and he may blame himself he did not dispose of his own part, seeing the bills of loading were indorsed to both; and, seeing he did not meddle with the wines, he ought to have seen to the payment of the bills by Denholm the intromittor, and to have secured himself against him as to hazard by the copartnery. The Lords assoilyied the defender; which decision seems hard upon factors. Page 36, No. 161.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting
