WILLIAM TODD v CHARLES F DAVIDSON (Court of Session)

Application for payment having been made to the defender, 2d March, and refused, the present action was raised against him on the 8th.—Hope was declared bankrupt on the 19th.

The defences were—1. That, the terms of the obligation not having been complied with in terminis , no renewal of the original bill having been taken, the defender was not bound to implement the obligation.

That the defender was liberated from the obligation by the time which was given to the principal debtor, without the defender's knowledge and consent, and by the failure on the part of the pursuer to intimate to him the dishonour of the note; Stirling v. Forrester, 13th June 1821, Shaw's App. Cases ; Thompson v. Fleming, 23d May 1826, Wilson and Shaw's App. Cases ; Thompson v. Bank of Scotland, 11th June 1824, Shaw's App. Cases .

It was answered —That the defender was not liberated from his obligation, either by the indulgence which was given to the principal debtor or otherwise, seeing that that indulgence was either expressly permitted by the original letter of guarantee, or afterwards consented to by the defender, and the right of relief was not injured by any thing done by the pursuer.

The Lord Ordinary, ‘in respect of the defender's letter of obligation, of date the 16th day of January 1826, and of his letter to the pursuer's agent, the 19th of May following, repelled the defences, and decerned.’—And to this interlocutor the Court , on a reclaiming note for the defender, unanimously adhered.