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 >> Pollock v Maxwell. [1760] 5 Brn 877 (15 July 1760) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1760/Brn050877-1084.html |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, collected by JAMES BURNETT, LORD MONBODDO.
Date: Pollock
v.
Maxwell
15 July 1760 Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In this case a bill was indorsed by a debtor of the indorsee’s for payment, and, accordingly, he got a receipt from the indorsee, acknowledging it to be in payment pro tanto. The acceptor of the bill had an objection of fraud, which was good against the indorser. The question was, Whether the same was good against the indorsee?
Lord Alemore made no distinction betwixt this case and the case of a bill indorsed for security: in which case it is established law that every objection competent against the indorser is likewise good against the indorsee; because, he said, wherever a bill is indorsed, not in the way of commerce, (that is, as a vehicle of money,) but by way either of security or payment, utitur jure communi, and the indorsement is no more than a common assignation: But Lord Coalston inclined to be of a different opinion, and to make a distinction betwixt payment and security; but all the Lords agreed, though upon different media, that the objection of fraud in this case was competent.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting
