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!
You are here:BAILII >>
Databases >>
Scottish Court of Session Decisions >>
James Robertson and Others, v Charles Macglashan. [1787] Mor 11129 (6 February 1787)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1787/Mor2611129-332.html Cite as:
[1787] Mor 11129
Bills retain their extraordinary privileges for six years.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In 1774, Macglashan adhibited his subscription, as acceptor, to a bill of exchange, which was afterwards, in 1779, indorsed to Robertson and others. At this last period, Macglashan was creditor to the indorser in sums far exceeding those contained in the bill.
An action having been brought at the instance of the indorsees, against Macglashan, he
Pleaded, It has long been a fixed point, that the extraordinary privileges attending bills of exchange are lost, when these have lain over for three years. After this, instead of being viewed as bags of money, which pass from hand to hand, unaffected by any objections that might be competent against former holders, they are to be considered as mere grounds of debt, with regard to which the assignee cannot be in a better situation than the cedent. Thus the same plea of compensation that could have been successfully used against the indorser of the bill in question, must be equally available against his indorsees. Erskine, book 3. tit. 2. § 37.
Answered, At any time prior to the year 1772, the defender's argument would have been of considerable weight; but as bills of exchange have since been declared, during six years, to be legal and probative documents, no reason can be assigned, why the duration of their extraordinary privileges should be limited to a shorter period.
The plea urged for the pursuer had been formerly recognised by the Court, though no precise determination had ever been given on the point.
The Lords adhered to the judgment of the Lord Ordinary, ‘in repelling the defences.’
Lord Ordinary, Rockville.Act. C. Hay.Alt. Geo. Fergusson.Clerk, Menzies.
Fol. Dic. v. 4. p. 103. Fac. Col. No 309. p. 477.
