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 >> Hunter v. M'Gregor [1867] ScotLR 5_256 (14 February 1867) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1867/05SLR0256.html Cite as: [1867] SLR 5_256, [1867] ScotLR 5_256 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 256↓
Charge on bill alleged to have been granted by a firm for money advanced to them for purposes of a joint-adventure, suspended, in respect of want of proof that the money was really so advanced.
This was a suspension by William Hunter junior, of a charge at the instance of John M'Gregor, on a bill dated 20th November 1865. The bill bore the signature of the firm of Hunter & Dick, of which firm it was said Hunter was a partner, and the charger alleged that it was granted to him by Dick in respect of advances made by the charger to the firm, in order to enable them to carry on a joint-adventure into which Hunter and Dick had entered. The suspender, on the contrary, alleged that the bill was not signed by him, or with his knowledge or consent, or for any debt contracted in reference to the joint-adventure.
The Lord Ordinary (
The charger reclaimed.
Cattanach (Scott with him) for reclaimer.
Trayner, for respondent, was not called on.
Lord President—The question here is, whether the money was advanced for the purposes of the joint-adventure; the Lord Ordinary has found in the negative, and I think rightly. It seems to me that the evidence makes this perfectly clear, but it is enough that the charger has failed to prove the affirmation. The joint-adventure is said by the charger to have commenced in June 1865. On the other hand, the suspender says it was not till he removed the machine from Hillington Farm on 30th August. It is alleged by the charger that the two persons, Hunter and Dick, entered into an agreement by which they became to a certain extent partners in June, agreeing that they should be bound by the firm of Hunter & Dick. It is said by the suspender that this was not agreed on until November. It seems to me that the suspender is right and the charger wrong. Dick had been in this line of business before communicating with Hunter; and after the machine was bought from Robertson, with an engine ready to work, Dick took the use of the machine during August. During that time Dick used the form of receipts he had used formerly, and used it down to September, when a new form of receipt with “Hunter and Dick” was used, indicating the point of time when the change took place. During June, July, and August, Dick reaped the profits, paid the wages, kept the receipts, and did not communicate with Hunter as to the position of the charger. I cannot say that the charger stands very favourably. His whole conduct shows that he knew he had no one to look to as his debtor but Dick, and that the signature of Dick to the bill was not an honest proceeding on his part. But it is not necessary to go much on that, for the real question here is, whether it is proved that the money was in rem versum of the joint-adventure? I think it was not, and therefore I am for adhering.
The other judges concurred.
Solicitors: Agent for Reclaimer— A. Wylie, S.S.C.
Agents for Respondent— Duncan & Dewar, W.S.
