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 >>
Batchin v Orr. [1792] Mor 1619 (00 June 1792)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1792/Mor0401619-177.html Cite as:
[1792] Mor 1619
Subject_1 BILL OF EXCHANGE. Subject_2 DIVISION IV.
Possessor's recourse against the Drawer and Indorser.
Subject_3 SECT. II.
Negotiation of Bill.
Batchin v. Orr
1792.
June. Case No. No 177.
Intimation between indorser and indorser must be made without any delay. It was not admitted as an excuse that a merchant was at his country-house, by which a few days were lost.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Wright and Beavis of Bristol granted a promissory note to Batchin and Birkmyre of Paisley for L. 167, payable at the house of Sir James Sanderson and Co. London; Batchin and Birkmyre indorsed this note to Messrs Orrs of Paisley, who again indorsed it to Cleugh of Manchester. From him it passed, by indorsation, through many hands, till it was presented by Ralph of Moor-fields at Sir James Sanderson's house, and protested for non-payment on the 11th June. Batchin and Birkmyre received no notice of the dishonour till the 30th June, when they were informed, by a clerk of Messrs Orrs; that it had returned dishonoured; and that they would be called upon for payment. Bat chin and Birkmyre asked for the bill immediately, but it was not delivered to them till next day, when, being ignorant at that time, that there had been an undue delay on the part of Messrs Orrs, they paid to the latter its contents; and sending the note off to Bristol, received for answer, that Wright and Beavis had stopped payment. Batchin and Birkmyre, on enquiry, having ascertained, that the note had been returned to Messrs Orrs on the 27th June, and that there had been a delay of between three and four days, till the 30th, in intimating to them its dishonour, brought, on that score, an action of repetition against Messrs Orrs for the value of this note. The defenders admitted, (what is the received doctrine), that the notification of dishonour, betwixt indorser and indorser, ought to be within a space of time as short as possible, and not protracted by any undue delay; and they urged, in excuse for their delay, that Mr Orr being at his country house, twenty miles from town, his clerk, on receiving the letter which contained the bill, on the 27th, sent it, on the 28th, unopened to his master in the country, who the next day returned it by post to Paisley, whence it became impossible to present it till the day following, viz. 30th June. Argued, on the other hand, that this delay was unwarrantable, the dishonour ought to have been intimated on the 27th; and, if a merchant chuses to leave his banking house, and go to the country, he ought to commit his business to a responsible person, empowered to open his letters, and transmit such as require dispatch. On the part of Messrs Orrs, it was attempted to be shown, that no injury had in fact arisen from the delay, as the bill, though it had been notified on the 27th as dishonoured, could not have arrived at Bristol before Wright and Beavis had committed an act of bankruptcy. The Court thought it unnecessary to investigate that circumstance. It was enough that an undue delay of three days was clearly instructed; and on that medium they decerned for repetition against Messrs Orrs. See Appendix.
