Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Held ( dub . Lord Johnston) that summary diligence was competent against the acceptor of a bill although the bill was not presented for payment on the due date but within six months thereof, as such presentment was due presentment according to the law and practice of Scotland prior to 1882.
The Bills of Exchange Act 1882 (45 and 46 Vict. cap. 61), secs. 45 and 98, is quoted supra in rubric .
T. D. M'Neill & Son, tailors and clothiers, and Thomas Day M'Neill, sole partner Page: 514 ↓
The complainers pleaded, inter alia —“(1) The said bill not having been presented to the complainers at its due date cannot be made the foundation of summary diligence, and the charges and warrants thereof should be suspended.”
The facts of the case appear from the following opinion appended to the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor:—
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.