| Creditors of Hynd v. M'Kechny |
1777
|
Expenses |
In 1764, Alexander M'Kechny became a tenant of a dwelling-house and offices in Port-Glasgow, which had been the property of James Hynd. Hynd, a land-waiter, died in debt. In 1770 Hynd's son renounced his claim to his father's estate and Hynd's effects were then sold to pay his creditors. In June 1775, a remit was made to Lord Stonefield to divide the funds from the sale, and at this time Stonefield discovered that no rents had been paid on the property occupied by Alexander M'Kechny. The creditors of John Hynd brought action against M'Kechny, and various facts of the tenancy were disputed: The year M'Kechny took up residence in the dwelling-house, the yearly rent, and the sums expended by M'Kechny on repairs and legal defenses against encroachment. While M'Kechny was eventually vindicated in court, he argued that the verity of his claim had been known to his creditors from the beginning, and that they were therefore responsible for his legal expenses. The pursuers, on the other hand, argued that M'Kechny was at fault for providing incomplete records and making himself unavailable to be deponed. |
| Cunningham and Simpson v. Walker and Smith |
6 Jul 1799
|
Expenses, Common debt, Debt, Debtors |
Case originated with debt due by the bankrupt fugitive Walter McFarlane, stabler in the Canongate, to Cunningham and Simpson. Other Creditors, but not including Cunningham and Simpson gathered and decided to have Walker and Smith auction off Mcfarlane's assets. Cunningham and Simpson challenged the right of Walker and Smith to claim the goods in order to pay off creditors. Cunningham and Simpson succeeded in claiming expenses from Walker and Smith. |
| Keltie v. Finlay |
1776
|
Bill (Financial Instrument), Mala Fides, Expenses, Fraud, Class |
In January 1770, John Finlay granted a bill to James Beveridge. Shortly afterward he made a partial payment to Thomas Beveridge, who had possession of the bill. A note of this partial payment was marked on the bill, but five years later David Keltie, the bill's endorsee, sued Finlay for its full amount. By this point the bill had been torn and the receipt of partial payment was disfigured. Finlay thus accused Keltie of bad faith ("pessima fide") and fraud, and petitioned the Court to exempt him from paying any additional part of the bill. After Keltie produced the torn-off section of the bill, Lord Barskimming decreed that Finlay would only have to pay the remaining balance, but that he was responsible for expenses. Finlay petitioned the court to overturn this ruling, arguing that Keltie was responsible for the court fees, having unjustly pressed him for more money than was due. Keltie in turn argued that Finlay's inconsistent testimony was to blame for the unnecessary expenses. He claimed that much of the confusion arose from whether the receipt was denominated in pounds Scots or sterling. Keltie argued that he was right to have insisted in favor of pounds Scots: likening the suspender to "the lower sort of people in this country," he claimed that "people of inferior rank in Scotland, to this day, generally count in Scots, and not in Sterling money." |
