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 >>
Johnston and Company, and Others, Creditors of Tweedie, v William Attwell. [1801] Mor 37_6 (7 March 1801)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1801/Mor37WRIT-005.html Cite as:
[1801] Mor 37_6
Johnston and Company, and Others, Creditors of Tweedie, v. William Attwell
Date: 7 March 1801 Case No. No. 5.
An obligation in security granted by several persons, for payment of the sums due to the creditors of a common debtor, may be executed upon a single stamp, whatever be the number of the creditors.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The creditors of James Tweedie, who were six in number, having agreed to supersede diligence against: him, on condition of his finding security to pay their debts by instalments, William Attwell and two other persons accordingly granted a bond, obliging themselves conjunctly and severally to pay the sums due to the respective creditors, amounting in all to £646 Sterling.
The bond was written upon a sheet of paper, with a stamp, costing £1. 9s.
William Attwell having presented a bill of suspension against payment of the bond, upon other grounds, a doubt was started, How far it was competent, by the stamp laws, to execute a bond in which six creditors were interested, upon a single stamp, corresponding to the aggregate sum in the bond; or whether a separate stamp was not necessary for the interest of each creditor?
The Lord Ordinary, proceeding on a report from the sump-office, (which was not printed,) superseded advising the bill “until the chargers shall have procured the bond charged on to be duly stamped, if they shall be advised so to do.”
A petition having been presented against this interlocutor, the Court were of opinion that the bond in question was duly stamped. There was here (it was observed) no junction of matters naturally disconnected with each other for the purpose of evading the stamp-duties, which is what the law (12th Anne, Sess. 2. C. 9. § 21. and 24.) had in view to prevent, but a cautionary obligation for the debts of one person, which fell naturally to be executed in one deed. It is like a bond for payment of a composition, which requires only one stamp, whatever be the number of creditors.
The Lords remitted to the Lord Ordinary, to refuse the bill.
Lord Ordinary, Dunsinnan.For the Petitioner, George Douglas.
Fac. Coll. No. 227. p. 517.
