Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR DAVID DALRYMPLE, LORD HAILES.
Subject_2 PROMISSORY-NOTE.
Subject_3 Recourse was sustained against the indorser of a Promissory-Note, though the strictness of negotiation on bills was not observed.

George Gillenders
v.
John Birtwhistle

Date: 17 July 1767

Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy

[Faculty Collection, IV. 292; Dictionary, 12, 258.]

Auchinleck. A promissory-note does not admit of proper diligence. Here demands for payment were made.

Coalston. In England, promissory-notes are the same as bills. This man was an Englishman, and supposed the promissory-notes in question to be the same as bills. The provision of recourse strengthens the supposition—but I do not think that the same strict negotiation is necessary in promissory-notes as in bills. The equitable powers of the Court might be interposed were there supine negligence in this case. I cannot but lament that the English law, as to promissory-notes, does not extend to Scotland.

Justice-Clerk. Promissory notes are not entitled to the privileges of the statute, but they are entitled to some privileges—they must be negotiated. I felt a disposition for the cause of the stranger, but there is not any mora in this case sufficient to relieve him. Promissory-notes are not yet in the same state in Scotland as they are in England.

Hailes. Of the same opinion—but thinks no expenses due—Mr Dingwall, from want of memory, committed many mistakes in his averments before the Ordinary, and thereby threw a sort of obscurity over the cause.

Adhere to Lord Kennet's interlocutor, but found no expenses due.

Act. A. Lockhart. Alt. R. M'Queen.