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.
After some previous procedure, the Lord Ordinary took the cause to report on informations. And, on the first point, the Court were clearly and unanimously of opinion, that the letters were to be viewed as a single guaranty for £800, for which, as the cautioners had not bound themselves conjunctly and severally, each could only be liable pro rata .
With regard to the two bills, of which extended protests are now produced, no objection can be taken, as it is competent for notaries to extend instruments of protest at any time subsequent to noting. This was the opinion expressed by the Judges in the case of Barbour v. Gordon, 23d May 1823, where it was held that the separate instruments of protest then produced would have been valid, if there had been any marking of the notaries upon the bills at the time when they fell due.
As to the two bills, of which protests are now produced, such instruments, being extended at such a distance of time, cannot be admitted to remedy the want of due negociation at the time when the bills were dishonoured.
Lord Ordinary, Cringletie. Act. Skene et Rob. Thomson. Alt. B. Greenshields. Rob. Paul, W. S. and James Smyth, W. S. Agents M. Clerk.
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.