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 >> James M'Adam v Alexander M'William. [1787] Hailes 1024 (14 June 1787) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1787/Hailes021024-0692.html Cite as: [1787] Hailes 1024 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
[1787] Hailes 1024
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR DAVID DALRYMPLE, LORD HAILES.
Subject_2 BILL OF EXCHANGE.
Subject_3 Regular negotiation not required of such Bills as are granted merely for the accommodation of the drawer. Bills pass by indorsation as well after as before protest.
Date: James M'Adam
v.
Alexander M'William
14 June 1787 Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
[Fac. Coll. IX. 514; Dict. 1613.]
Braxfield. Bills have the privileges of bags of money for six months. It is natural and common to protest them. Why then should not indorsation be good even after protest? And why should bills lose their privileges by indorsation?
Eskgrove. If, by neglect, a bill should not have been protested, according to the defender's argument, it would be good:—if duly protested, it would be bad.
On the 14th June 1787, “The Lords decerned against the defender, and found expenses due.”
Act. Mat. Ross. Alt. — Maconochie. Reporter, Stonefield. N. B. There were other questions here, but involved in facts.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting
