Neill v. Dobson, Molle, & Co., Ltd [1902] ScotLR 39_412 (04 March 1902)

Neill v. Dobson, Molle, & Co., Ltd [1902] ScotLR 39_412 (04 March 1902)

Summary diligence on a bill of exchange accepted generally is not competent unless presentment for payment is made at the address of the drawee as specified on the bill, in accordance with section 45(4)(b) of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 and preserved by section 98; presentment was not excused in this case, so the diligence was wrongful.

Citation
[1902] ScotLR 39_412
Parties
Pursuer/respondent: John Hay Neill; Defender/reclaimer: Dobson, Molle, & Company, Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
04 March 1902
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary to Inner House, Second Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; court adhered to Lord Ordinary's decision.
Legal Topics
Bills of Exchange, Summary Diligence, Presentment for Payment, Protest, Acceptor Liability
Commercial Law Banking Law Bills of Exchange Summary Diligence Presentment for Payment Protest Acceptor Liability

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Hay Neill

Pursuer/respondent

Dobson, Molle, & Company, Limited

Defender/reclaimer

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary to Inner House, Second Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary diligence on a bill of exchange accepted generally is competent without presentment for payment at the address specified on the bill under Scottish law and the Bills of Exchange Act 1882.

Ratio Decidendi

Summary diligence on a bill of exchange accepted generally is not competent unless presentment for payment is made at the address of the drawee as specified on the bill, in accordance with section 45(4)(b) of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 and preserved by section 98; presentment was not excused in this case, so the diligence was wrongful.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; court adhered to Lord Ordinary's decision.

Orders

  • Summary diligence by defenders declared incompetent and wrongful.
  • Pursuer entitled to damages for wrongful diligence.