BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
You are here:BAILII >>
Databases >>
Scottish Court of Session Decisions >>
Cuninghame v Brown. [1676] Mor 12323 (18 January 1676)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1676/Mor2912323-093.html Cite as:
[1676] Mor 12323
The law of England, whereby the first person named in bonds, as coprincipal, is understood as principal, and the rest as cautioners, found probable by the attestation of the Judges of the common pleas.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Andrew Cuninghame pursued Brown as heir to his father, for fulfilling a bond of his father's, obliging him to relieve the pursuer of all cautionries for which he was obliged for Robert Cuninghame, and particularly of a bond granted by the said Robert and Andrew Cuninghames to Captain Lavrock in England, after the English form of a double bond. The defender alleged, That this English bond did not prove Andrew Cuninghame to be cautioner for Robert, because they are thereby bound as conjunct principals. It was answered, That in English bonds, the person first exprest is always understood principal, and the others but as cautioners.
The Lords found the allegeance relevant, and for proving thereof, granted commission to the Judges of the Common Pleas, to declare what was their law in the case.
