6

'that sum on our obligation, which might either be a bond, or, May 11, 1826. 'if wanted sooner, the temporary document of a bill might be 'adopted, signed by Mr Robinson and me jointly. Mention this to your brother, and give him the inclosed. Try to let me ⚫ have this if you can, and you will much favour, &c.'—This accommodation, in consequence of Mason agreeing to renew the bill, was not at this time required. Afterwards, however, the renewed bill being on the point of falling due, Ainslie made another application to Edgar, who wrote to him on the 2d of May 1816, in these terms:- When I had the pleasure of seeing 'you here, two days ago, you mentioned that you might, by and by, require the accommodation about which you wrote me some 'time ago. If you do not require it before the middle of next 'month, we can then, without difficulty, discount your bill; but if you require the money before that time, the matter may 'be better managed, by your discounting our bill at three ' months, (which we will send you now, or at any time,) as Ed< gars and Lyon themselves stand in need of all the discounts they can look for from the banks during the present month. 'When our bill to you falls due, you can either remit us the ' money to retire it, or, by discounting your bill at that time, we ⚫ can continue the accommodation for three months longer. I 'think it better to write you early, to arrange this matter, as I 'am anxious not to disappoint you at the time you want the money. Be so good as write me on receipt of this; and if it 'will answer you, we will, on receipt of your letter, send you ' our bill, at three months' date, for the sum you mentioned.' On the 8th of the same month, Ainslie replied, I am extremely obliged by your friendship in that letter, and willingly accept ' of your kind offer. You will remember that when the idea of 6 your accommodating me first was mentioned, the plan was, ⚫ that I should send you Mr Robinson's note and mine, which 'you then proposed discounting, and sending the money. money. Ac'cordingly, Mr Robinson being in London, with the view of carrying that scheme into effect, I sent him for signature, a ' promissory-note (in conjunction with me) to your firm, and it has been returned accepted, or rather signed by him. I now 'inclose it for you, and trust that you may find it convenient 'still to carry into effect that original plan of discounting that ♦ note, and remitting me its contents, as the cash is wanted by me on Saturday first. I hope you can manage matters so as 'to discount it to-morrow, Thursday, or Friday, and make the remittance on Friday.' To this Edgar sent an answer that certain difficulties existed, from the rules at the banks, in

6

May 11, 1826. getting the note discounted, and he stated, that It occurred to me as the only way in which the matter could, just at present, be managed, was to draw on you at one month's date, which • Edgars and Lyon accordingly did this day for £236, 7s.; and 'I now inclose bank-notes for the proceeds, being £235 sterling. By the time the draft on you falls due, we will be able 'to discount your bill, as by the middle of next month, we, ourselves, will be easier. In the meantime I return it to you, ' and will be ready to discount either it or your own bill within 'three months, so as to remit you the proceeds in time to pay 6 our draft on you, which of course you will accept when it is 'presented. When you send your bill for discount, it would ' answer better if made payable in Edinburgh than Glasgow, as the banks prefer Edinburgh to Glasgow bills.'

The proceeds of the draft thus sent by Edgar were applied in payment of the bill by Robinson and Ainslie to Mason. This draft fell due on the 10th-13th June, and to provide for it, Ainslie, on the 9th, re-transmitted to Edgar, the promissorynote by Ainslie and Robinson, payable in Glasgow to Edgar and Lyon. This bill Edgar discounted, and forwarded the proceeds to Edinburgh, and Ainslie took up the one month's draft. The promissory-note of Robinson and Ainslie was payable on the 5th August, and Anslie wrote to Edgar on the 1st:-The bill per Mr George Robinson and me, which you were so good as discount for me (£235), payable at your office, I observe is 'due on 2d-5th August current. As from your correspondence 'then, it did not seem of consequence to you when it was payable, I have been counting on your allowing it to remain over 'for a little while, cash being in the market very scarce at pre'sent, which has prevented me from being conveniently in cash ⚫ at this time to take it up. This, I trust, it may be convenient 'for you to do, and you will oblige me much if you will do so. 'This you will receive upon 2d (to-morrow), and your writing me in course that you can manage the matter in this way for 'me, I shall take kind.'

Edgar immediately answered, that it would not then suit to advance the money for the bill; but stated that we now draw ' upon you for the amount of your bill, including the discount ' on the last and present bills, and the stamp, and will thank

6

you to return the enclosed draft in course of post, which may prevent our being put in actual advance, provided we can get it ' on Monday forenoon. That it may be the more convenient for 'you, we have drawn the inclosed at some days more than three months, and it will not fall due till Martinmas. We will take

'care of the bill on Monday, but trust to receiving the inclosed May 11, 1826. ' to refund us on Tuesday.'

Ainslie accepted this draft, and on the 4th of August returned

it to Edgar, saying,—' I have this day yours of 3d current, and

now return you the bill you have drawn on me for £240, 7s. accepted payable 11th-14th of November. I am extremely 'obliged by your at present thus managing the matter. I do 'not wish you to return me the bill you already have, accepted by both Mr Robinson and me. Let it remain in your hands ❝ for the present, and until we settle the debt afterwards; you 'may therefore take it up not on a discharge of it, but per indor'sation. I'll see you ere long at Glasgow ; and in the meantime you can write me a few lines mentioning your having received ' this bill; but that you, in the meantime, retain also the other bill till the debt is paid.'

Edgar discounted the acceptance, and with the proceeds retired the promissory-note of Robinson and Ainslie, and took it up in the way suggested. He then wrote to Ainslie:- I was yes'terday favoured with your letter of the 4th current, covering your acceptance to Edgars and Lyon, due 11th-14th Novem'ber, for £240, 7s. We have taken care of your and Mr Ro'binson's bill for £235, due yesterday, and will hold it till we ' have the pleasure of seeing you here.'

6

When Ainslie's acceptance fell due, he again wrote to Edgar on the 19th October 1816. 'As Martinmas returns, we begin 'to think of our obligations, and your and my bill for my ac'commodation has not failed to recur. But as the principal way that lairds have of discharging debts is by contracting corresponding loans, and as I have not succeeded in laying my ' hands on a similar sum, so I must beg the favour to continue ' matters as they are for a little longer. I hope you will find 'no inconvenience in so managing the matter for me; and I ' write you thus early about it on that account.' Mr Edgar, on the 25th, wrote in answer,- We will endeavour to arrange • matters in the same way as formerly, by discounting your bill ' in the Royal Bank, and remitting you the proceeds; and now ⚫ enclose a draft on you, 4th October, at four months' date, £240, which I will thank you to accept, and return to me so 6 as to be here about the 1st or 2d of next month; and I will take care to get it discounted, so as to be in time for the bill 'you have to pay on the 11th-14th November, and will either 'pay you the money when you are here, or remit it to you in Edinburgh.' Ainslie accordingly accepted, and returned the four months' draft for £240, which being discounted by Edgar,

May 11, 1826. the proceeds were remitted to Edinburgh, and with these proceeds Ainslie retired his acceptance.

6

Again, on the 10th May 1817, Ainslie wrote to Edgar from Edinburgh: To prevent mistakes about this, I have to men⚫tion, that the purpose of your remitting this money is to retire my acceptance to you for payment for £243, 68., payable ' at the Royal Bank here; and which was one of a series of bills, by which, one after another, we raised money, so as to have a 'fund to replace that originally employed in retiring a bill, in which Mr G. Robinson had joined me, to James Mason in Berwickshire, per £235, 12s., dated 10th November 1815.'

This kind of traffic continued until 1818; and shortly afterwards, Ainslie became so embarrassed as to oblige him to place his affairs in the hands of a trustee; and of this he gave intimation to Edgar.

Being unable to obtain payment, Edgars and Lyon raised an action against Ainslie and Robinson for payment of their promissory-note for £235. Ainslie made no appearance, but Robinson gave in defences; and the Lord Ordinary, after some procedure, decerned in terms of the libel, and afterwards found expenses due. Robinson having presented a petition against this judgment, which was appointed to be answered, the Court, on the 26th of May 1824, adhered.

Lord Craigie. The interlocutor is quite right. The promissory-note by Ainslie and Robinson was granted with the view to retire a joint obligation, in which Robinson was as effectually bound as Ainslie was. There was no giving of time, in the proper sense of the word, or which can afford any defence to Robinson.

Lord Glenlee.-The promissory-note was transmitted by Ainslie to Edgars and Lyon on the 4th of August 1816, on returning the draft which had been made upon him, so as to raise money for payment of the original debt, and he desired them to keep the promissory-note till the debt was paid. Matters appear afterwards to assume somewhat of a complicated character, but if they remained on the same footing as at first, I am at a loss to see how the obligation of Robinson has been taken away. I rather think that they did so, and that Edgars and Lyon have just made an advance in liquidation of the original debt for which Robinson was bound. In security of their relief for this advance they received the promissory-note, and they are entitled to avail themselves of it.

Lord Justice-Clerk.-There are no legal grounds for disturbing the interlocutor. There has been no giving of time in reference

to the acceptor, which in such a case as this is not relevant. If May 11, 1826. Robinson had been able to show that the promissory-note which he had granted had been extinguished, the case would have been very different, but he has not done so.

Lord Robertson.-The answers are quite satisfactory. Robinson was jointly bound with Ainslie for a debt of £235. A promissory-note was then granted, with the view of raising money for both; and this was put into the hands of Edgars and Lyon. But even if Robinson had not been liable for the original debt, this would not have affected a bona fide holder of the promissory-note. There is no evidence that it was ever retired.

Robinson again reclaimed, but the Court, on advising his petition with answers, adhered on the 8th of February 1825, "reserving to the petitioner his claim of deduction for and in ' respect of any dividend received by the respondents from Mr 'Ainslie's estate and effects.'*

Lord Glenlee.-It will be observed, that Ainslie desired Edgar and Lyon to take up the promissory-note per indorsation.' This is no doubt somewhat ambiguous, as perhaps Ainslie might have wished to have had it indorsed to himself. The language of Edgars and Lyon is also equally ambiguous, for they say to Ainslie that we will hold it till we see you.' If, however, the note was taken up by indorsation to Edgars and Lyon themselves, which I take to be the fact, the case is different from what it would have been if it had been taken up and indorsed to Ainslie, as that would have extinguished the bill. There is, however, no allegation to that effect, and I am afraid we must adhere.

Lord Robertson.-The note was put into the hands of Edgars and Lyon as a security, and no arrangement between Robinson and Ainslie could affect them. A difficulty, however, arises from their having returned the note to Ainslie, and it may be doubted whether Ainslie had any authority to retransmit the note to them. That, however, is a question properly between Ainslie and Robinson.

Lord Pitmilly.-My opinion remains the same as when I pronounced the judgment complained of. I agree with Lord Robinson that Edgars and Lyon have nothing to do with any question between Ainslie and Robinson. The latter trusted Ainslie with the note, in order to retire one for which they were jointly bound, and he must suffer the consequences. Edgars and Lyon are bona fide holders. There is no room for the plea of novation.

See 3 Shaw and Dunlop, No. 355.