THOMSON v SANDEMAN and MILLER (Court of Session)

The Lord Ordinary ‘found it proven, that intimation of the dishonour of the bill charged upon was given to the suspenders, and therefore repelled the reasons of suspension founded on the denial of said intimation; repelled also the other reasons of suspension; found the letters orderly proceeded, and the suspenders liable to the charger in expenses.’

Lord Cringletie was of opinion, that it must be held that the suspenders got regular notice of the dishonour; and that it was impossible to get the better of the evidence of the bill itself, unless their allegations could be proved by reference to the charger's oath.

Lord Meadowbank .—I agree in thinking that the interlocutor is right, and, in particular, that the evidence of the intimation is sufficient. The circumstances here come very near those stated in the opinion of Lord Ellenborough, in the case of Hetherington, cited by the charger, (4 Campbell's Rep. 194), as affording sufficient evidence.

Lord Justice-Clerk .—I am of your Lordships' opinion, that the suspenders having chosen unqualifiedly to indorse the bill, they must be held liable, whatever may have been the real nature of the transaction as understood between them and the charger's agent. I also hold the evidence of intimation sufficient, and concur with Lord Meadowbank in viewing the case of Hetherington as an authority in point.

Lord Mackenzie, Ordinary. For the suspenders, Dean of Fac. (Hope,) Menteath. Js. Pattison, W. S. Agent. For the charger, P. Robertson, Graham Bell. Js. Usher, Agent. T. Clerk.