THOMAS MACKIE v WILLIAM WATSON (Court of Session)

In August 1835, Mackie raised an action of count and reckoning against Watson before the Magistrates of Glasgow, calling him to account, which action was in dependence when Mackie received a charge upon the bond over the Bridgeton property, for payment of principal and interest since its date, in 1806. Upon this he presented a bill of suspension, without caution or consignation, founding chiefly on the presumption of payment from lapse of time, and no demand made.

The Lord Ordinary, (Cockburn,) on 27th November 1835, refused the bill; but, on a reclaiming note, his interlocutor was recalled, and the bill passed on juratory caution.

The Lord Ordinary suspended the letters and charge simpliciter, and found expenses due, and subjoined the following note:

If these views are correct, the existence of the uncancelled bond, in the hands of the creditor, is nothing more than what must occur in most such cases. But it is of less than usual importance in this case, when it is recollected that the charger was the law agent of the suspender, a person unacquainted with business, and likely enough to hold documents for behoof of his employer, after his own interest in them as an individual was discharged.’

M'Neill , in support of note, founded upon the authority in Erskine, iv. 2, § 12, as to intrinsic and extrinsic, and questioned the authority of the cases of Reid and Cameron, cited by the Lord Ordinary.