| Agnes Watson v. Mary Rae |
16 Jul 1773
|
Bonds |
This case was about the ability of minors, when choosing their own curators, to agree that those curators would not be liable for omissions (as opposed to active interference with the minors’ property). Greenock merchant James Watson, the father of pursuer Agnes Watson, died leaving three minor children. The children chose several curators to manage their affairs, including James’s business partner Robert Rae. The “act of curatory” that empowered these curators included a clause absolving them of liability for omissions. After the Watson children came of age, they sued the curators for mishandling the estate. The proceeding stretched over many years, and after the curators died, Agnes Watson continued the action against their representatives. One of these representatives was defender Mary Rae, daughter of Robert, who contested a number of Agnes’s claims. In particular, Mary argued that she could not be held responsible for the curators’ failure to collect certain debts, because the act of curatory shielded the curators from liability for omissions. In response, Agnes argued that minors could not elect curators subject to such a condition. |
| Clark v. Stuart |
10 Mar 1779
|
Bonds, Sist, Maryland |
In August 1770, Hugh Macbride, Charles Philipshill, and the petitioner Peter Clark granted a bond for £150 sterling to Elisabeth Macbride. Charles Philipshill was the receiver of the money while the petitioner cosigned the loan at the request of Marion Philipshill and James Stewart. Both Marion Philipshill and James Stewart signed a promissory document, certifying they would indemnify Clark £75 each should repayment be requested. In June 1777, the heirs of Elisabeth Macbride called in the loan and Peter Clark paid her the money. The other two signers of the loan having relocated to Maryland. Marion Philipshilll reimbursed Clark her half of the loan but James Stewart did not. The Magistrates of Glasgow ruled that Stewart should pay Clark, but Stewart brought action to the Court of Session. In a previous judgment Lord Stonefield pronounced that the case be put on hold until the principal debtor, Charles Philipshill, be sued for repayment. Peter Clark then petitioned the court to have this decision overturned. On March 3, 1779 the Court remitted the cause to the Magistrates of Glasgow. Stewart then petitioned the Court to alter this interlocutor. Handwritten marginalia on this document indicates that the Court refused Stewart's petition. |
| Creditors of Angus Fisher v. The Creditors of Patrick Campbell, and Others |
18 Dec 1778
|
Bonds |
Angus Fisher, merchant of Inveraray, borrowed some £600 sterling from the Old Ayr Bank. Captain James Campbell, Patrick Campbell of Knap, Gillies of Duchra, and Ochiltree of Lindsaig served as joint-cautioners. At the same time Angus Fisher had other outstanding debts, including one held by Mrs. Sarah Ranken. Both Captain Campbell and Mrs. Ranken were granted heritable bonds of relief over the lands of Auchindrain for payment and security. In December 1771, the Old Ayr Bank demanded repayment. Angus Fisher had died insolvent, as had Gillies of Duchra. Campbell of Knap, Ochiltree, and their creditors, gave Captain Campbell £230 each, and he then reimbursed the bank in full. All the joint-cautioners had arranged that the heritable bond held by Captain Campbell would be used to reimburse all cautioners and their creditors. Mrs. Sarah Ranken and other creditors of Angus Fisher objected to this arrangement, claiming that the income from the property should instead be used to pay other creditors who held heritable bonds against Auchindrain. In 1778 Lord Hailes pronounced that Captain Campbell's co-cautioners were indeed entitled to a residuary security from the property. Ranken and other creditors of Fisher then petitioned the Court, arguing that the heritable bond was held personally by Captain Campbell and could not be used to reimburse the other co-cautioners. The Court repelled her objection. |
| Erskine v. Hay-Balfour |
13 Jan 1767
|
Bonds |
In 1717, James Balfour of Randerstoun and Thomas Hay of Edinburgh granted bond to Thomas Erskine. Upon Erskine's death, his three daughters each inherited a one third share of the bond. Janet, the youngest daughter, died without issue. This case involved a dispute over whether or not the other two sisters had a lawful claim to the full bond payment, including Janet's third and its interest. The defender, John Hay-Balfour and his Tutors, claimed that the two living sisters failed to take the legal steps required to vest in them Janet's share of the bond. Handwritten note on front page reads "refused." |
| John Krassaw v. Neil, Earl of Roseberie |
1769
|
Res judicata, Bonds |
This case was about competing claims to a heritable bond. Lieutenant-General George Preston granted the bond to Archibald Primrose, Earl of Rosebery; The Earl then conveyed the bond to his four younger children. Mr. John Primrose, one of those children, entered into several transactions concerning his share. After General Preston’s heir raised a process of multiplepoinding, it was determined that John’s share was due to four individuals: Neil Primrose, Earl of Rosebery; John Krassaw; Alexander Sinclair, Earl of Caithness; and Lady Margaret Primrose, Countess of Caithness. However, the Court did not delineate the interests of these individuals, so Sir George raised a second process of multiplepoinding, which was the subject of this case. Earl Neil argued that the other claimants’ interests had been extinguished by prior payments, while John Krassaw argued that this issue was res judicata. Krassaw also argued that his interest was preferable to Earl Neil’s, and that Earl Neil’s claims regarding prior payment were unfounded. |
| Mackenzie and Husband v. MacLeod and Cuthbert |
1774
|
Tutors and Curators, Bonds |
David Mackenzie left his estate to his children, while reserving a liferent for his spouse Isabel Macrae and naming her the children’s tutor. The estate included a bond granted by Roderick Macleod of Cadboll. After David died, Isabel demanded payment of the bond. Roderick, however, feared that Isabel’s limited rights to the estate would prevent her from effectively discharging the bond. To resolve this issue, it was agreed that James Cuthbert, a creditor of Isabel’s second husband, would indemnify Roderick against other claims on the bond. Isabel discharged the bond, and Cuthbert drew the proceeds in satisfaction of the debt that was owed to him. Many years later, Ann Mackenzie, the daughter of David and Isobel, raised an action against Roderick to collect on the bond. In response, Robert Bruce Aeneas Macleod (Roderick’s son and representative) argued that his father had already paid Isobel Macrae, who was the proper creditor. |
| Miller v. Semple |
19 Jun 1776
|
Bonds, Debt |
Under a marriage contract executed in 1724, the late John Semple promised his wife Ann Lindsay an annuity of 300 merks. Ann Lindsay's father James Lindsay provided that his estate was to go to his heirs, but it passed to John Semple due to various deaths in the family. In 1747, John Semple sold the estate to John Miller, pursuer. At issue is whether there were debts attached to the estate. Defender John Semple, nephew of the aforementioned John Semple, maintained there were no debts attached to the estate because the earlier Semple received the estate through his deceased son, not through his wife Ann Lindsay. Semple argued that the wife only had a life interest (liferent) in the estate. Pursuer John Miller argued that Semple received the estate by deed of his wife. |
| Park v. Glen |
1778
|
Deathbed, Bonds, Liferent |
Elizabeth Park owned some bonds from the sale of her late brother's lands. She later conveyed these bonds to her cousin, Robert Park. Robert Park had a sister, Margaret, but disliked Margaret's husband. Shortly before his death, Robert Park conveyed the aforementioned bonds to his cousin, William Glen. Because Robert Park died less than a month after this disposition, Margaret Park challenged it upon the head of deathbed. Glen argued before Lord Braxfield that the subjects in question constituted a personal right and could not be challenged on the head of deathbed. The pursuer, Margaret Park, argued that as their price was made a burden upon land, they could not be alienated upon deathbed. Lord Braxfield found that one of the bonds in question, granted by Adam Walker for the lands of Wooden, constituted a heritable right. He refused further representation from Glen, who then petitioned the Court for review. |
