National Bank v Martin

JurisdictionScotland
Judgment Date24 July 1848
Date24 July 1848
Docket NumberNo. 1
Year1848
CourtCourt of Session (Inner House - First Division)
1ST DIVISION.

Ld. President, Presiding Judge.

No. 1
National Bank
and
Martin

Agent and Principal—Bill of Exchange—Bank.

ALEXANDER MARTIN, farmer, Inversanda, drew a bill for L.300 for the accommodation of Duncan Cameron, farmer, Pollock, which was accepted by Cameron, and discounted by him at the National Bank's agency at Fortwilliam. This bill, which fell due on 23d May 1842, six months after Martin's death, was dishonoured by Cameron, and was protested against him for non-payment, against the drawer and acceptor for recourse, and against all concerned for interest, damages, and expenses. Cameron, the acceptor, was afterwards sequestrated; and Martin's executors having refused to pay the bill, the National Bank raised the present action against them.

They pleaded in defence;—

That Cameron had been a tenant of Sir James Miles Riddell of Ardnamurchan, to whom, at Whitsunday 1842, he renounced his lease, and assigned over the whole stock on his farm, valued at L.2630. After deducting rent and other debts due to Sir James Riddel by Cameron, there remained a balance due to the latter of L.1382: 2: 10½, for which, on 30th June 1842, Mr Kennedy, factor for Ardnamurchan, granted his promissory-note to Cameron. This note, Dr Martin's executors averred, was on its date, or the day after, indorsed by Cameron, and discounted by Mr Thomas Macdonald, writer, Fortwilliam, agent for the National Bank there, with the Bank, and the proceeds placed to Cameron's credit in his account with them. The proceeds of the note were thus placed with the Bank, on the implied obligation that they should apply them first to the payment of Cameron's proper debts which were then due to them. Accordingly the bank, or Mr Macdonald as their agent, had paid two bills of Cameron's past due, amounting to L.755; but instead of applying any part of the balance of L.598 to the bill now sued for, which was also past due, they had applied it in payment of a promissory-note for L.360, by Cameron to themselves, and of another bill between Cameron and his brother-in-law, for whom Macdonald acted as agent, neither of which was due for several months. A balance of L.47 still remained, which it was said the Bank had allowed Macdonald to retain in payment of an account due by Cameron to himself. It was further averred, that although the protest on this bill was duly taken on 23d May 1842, it was not recorded till 21st November; and although a warrant of charge...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • FS v RS
    • United Kingdom
    • Family Court
    • 30 September 2020
    ... ... on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.” The ... the principles in Three Rivers District Council and others v The Governor & Company of the Bank of England [2006] EWHC 816 (Comm) , [2006] 5 Costs LR 714 , para 25, confirmed by the Court of ... ...
  • Mohammad Saeed v Mohamed Ibrahim
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 3 August 2018
    ...reference to bank statements that the solicitors acting in the transaction had remitted £180k to D1 and that over the period 6.4.11 to 19.5. 11 D1 had withdrawn £197k in cash in sums varying between £500 and £44k. Mr Briggs questioned D1 about payments into bank accounts. In the course of t......
  • Smuts and Another v Pearson
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division
    • 11 March 2010
    ...we will honour all invoices that duly arrive …' (emphasis added); (10) C1 drafted the Sale Document without any input or amendment by D1; ( 11) D1's email address, which C1 used prior to and after the signing of the Sale Document, was mike@3pointimaging.co.uk; (12) on 26.10.05, C1 arrived a......
  • R v Mark Stephen Lally
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 7 July 2021
    ...was reasonable. He relied on R v Simon [2018] EWCA Crim 3086 as supporting the judge's approach. The Criminal Procedure Rules, rule 3. 11 D.1 in particular, specifically allow a judge to limit cross-examination of a witness, and he relied on the fact that prosecution counsel was similarly ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 firm's commentaries
  • Notice Poster For New Jersey’s Earned Sick Leave Law Released By Department Of Labor For Use Starting On October 29
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • 26 October 2018
    ...Department of Labor and Workforce Development (“NJDOL”) has released its notice poster pursuant to the Earned Sick Leave Law, N.J.S.A. 34:11D-1 et seq. (the “Law”), that takes effect on October 29, 2018. This notice, which is available in English and multiple other languages, has to be (i) ......
  • The One Who Was Bored at Work
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • 8 October 2019
    ...name for the business: BAW Retirement Services. He made a fatal mistake in the filing. He checked the “no” box on Form ADV Items 11.D.(1)-(5) which ask whether there were prior investment-related actions, including by a state regulatory agency. That means he filed a registration that contai......
  • The One Who Was Bored at Work
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • 8 October 2019
    ...name for the business: BAW Retirement Services. He made a fatal mistake in the filing. He checked the “no” box on Form ADV Items 11.D.(1)-(5) which ask whether there were prior investment-related actions, including by a state regulatory agency. That means he filed a registration that contai......
5 books & journal articles
  • Index
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 2 - 2016 Part VIII. Selected Litigation Issues
    • 27 July 2016
    ...Recordkeeping requirements, §35:2.G Sabine Pilot doctrine, employee’s refusal to falsify records or reporting of illegal act, §§3:11.C.2, 3:11.D.1 TCHRA, records maintenance requirements, §§15:3.D, 18:5.B.1, 18:6.E.2 Texas Hazard Communication Act. See Hazard Communication Texas Unemploymen......
  • Index
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 2 - 2014 Part VIII. Selected litigation issues
    • 16 August 2014
    ...Recordkeeping requirements, §35:2.G Sabine Pilot doctrine, employee’s refusal to falsify records or reporting of illegal act, §§3:11.C.2, 3:11.D.1 TCHRA, records maintenance requirements, §§15:3.D, 18:5.B.1, 18:6.E.2 Texas Hazard Communication Act. See Hazard Communication Texas Unemploymen......
  • Index
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Texas Employment Law. Volume 1 Part VIII. Selected litigation issues
    • 5 May 2018
    ...Privacy issues, §§15:4.F, 28:8.B Sabine Pilot doctrine, employee’s refusal to falsify records or reporting of illegal act, §§3:11.C.2, 3:11.D.1 TCHRA, records maintenance requirements, §§15:3.D, 18:5.B.1, 18:6.E.2 Texas Hazard Communication Act. See Hazard Communication Texas Unemployment C......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 2 - 2014 Part VIII. Selected litigation issues
    • 16 August 2014
    ...21:7.A.1 Austin v. Healthtrust, Inc. , 951 S.W.2d 78 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1997, writ granted), aff’d , 967 S.W.2d 400 (Tex. 1998), §§3:11.D.1, 3:14.D.14, 34:1.A.2 Austin v. Inet Techs., Inc. , 118 S.W.3d 491 (Tex. App.—Dallas [5th Dist.] 2003, no pet.), §§28:3.C.2, 29:1, 29:2, 29:2.A.2......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 provisions

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT