Legal Subject: Adjudication

Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
Mr John Snodgrass, Preacher of the Gospel, George Steel, John Beatson, and Others v. Mr John Logan and Others 1772 Ministers, Adjudication, Aliment, Contract, Election, Election contest This case concerns the selection of the second minister for the parish at South Leith. In the past, the second minister has been selected by a committee with representatives from the incorporations of different trades and the kirk-session (a group of elders in the local congregation). The defender John Logan and the pursuer John Snodgrass were set up as candidates. The incorporations and the kirk-session disagree about the candidates. Each side also points to errors in the selections and voting process. In an interlocutory ruling, Lord Kennet Ordinary found for Logan. Mr Snodgrass, and the voters on his side, brought a process of reduction and declarator against Mr Logan, and his adherents, before Court. Mr Logan and his party repeated a counter-process of a similar nature.
Agnes Watson v. Mary Rae 1773 Bonds, Debt, Aliment, Intromission, Adjudication, Succession 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.
Alexander Duncan, and Others v. The Magistrates of Aberdeen 1783 Debt, Adjudication, Tax, Interlocutor, Oath, Process The pursuers challenged a regulation passed by the magistrates of Aberdeen, which raised the dues required to become a burgess.
Alexander Farquharson v. The Governor and Company of Undertakers for raising Thames water in York-buildings 1775 Landlord and tenant, Liferent, Rent, Lease, Tack, Adjudication The York Building Company, defender, leased the mansion and property of Fingask to John Drummond of Megginch for a term of 99 years. Pursuer Alexander Farquharson subsequently acquired the right to the lease. The mansion had fallen into a state of disrepair, and Farquharson sued the Company, alleging that the Company was required to pay for repairs. The Company argued that the lease was written specifically to absolve it of this responsibility.
Alexander Geddes and Allan Clark v. Jean Bull 1796 Marriage, Adjudication, Legitimacy, Reduction, Succession, Disposition Alexander Geddes and Allan Clarke petitioned the Court to alter Lord Dreghorn's interlocutor in their action against Jean Bull. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Alexander Gordon of Culvenan, and Jean Macculloch, Elder Daughter of John Macculloch, Elder of Barholm v. James Dewar of Vogrie, John Macculloch Elder, and John Macculloch Younger, of Barholm 1771 Debt, Adjudication, Tailzie, Entail, Succession, Liferent John Macculloch's estate, which encompassed a considerable land-estate in the stewarty of Kirkcudbright and shire of Wigtown, was subject to a settlement containing strict prohibitive, irritant, and resolutive clauses. This case is a dispute over inheritance claims following Macculloch's death.
Alexander Irvine of Drum v. The Earl of Aberdeen, &c 1772 Debt, Estate, Adjudication, Tailzie, Entail, Aliment The estate of Alexander Irvine of Drum was heavily burdened with debts at the time of his death. The estate went through a series of family members. Through this process, some debts were relieved but others were added. The estate was sold in 1736 to cover the debts. A small part of the estate was set aside for the Irvine family, but most of the estate went to the Earl of Aberdeen or Patrick Duff of Premnay. After John Irvine of Drum's death in 1737, the successor to the estate, Alexander Irvine of Crimond, mounted a legal challenge to the settlement of the estate. The pursuer in the present case was Alexander Irvine of Drum, grandson of Alexander Irvine of Drum. The 3rd Earl of Aberdeen, taking up a cause inherited from his father, and Patrick Duff argued that the Irvine family has no valid claims against them.
Alexander Irvine v. George Earl and others 1769 Debt, Succession, Adjudication, Entail, Bankruptcy, Liferent Alexander Irvine of Drum, represented by his curators, pursued George Earl of Aberdeen, Mrs. Margaret Duff of Culter, and Alexander Udney of Udny, her husband, for an order to produce writs and deeds. The defenders filed answers to the petition in which they responded to the pursuer's demand for production.
Alexander Milne v. Freeholders of Aberdeenshire 1791 Freeholder, Adjudication, Liferent, Trust, Prescription, Election contest Alexander Milne, as pursuer, petitioned the Court in June 1791 and again by reclaiming petition in December 1791 to alter a recent interlocutor in his action against the Freeholders of Aberdeenshire. Captain John Gordon subsequently presented his own petition requesting the Court to alter its recent interlocutor in the same cause.
Alexander, Duke of Gordon, v. The Commissioners for Managing the Forfeited Estates annexed to the Crown 1771 Landlord and tenant, Clan Act, Rent, Trustee, Forfeiture, Adjudication The Clan Act, as subsequently amended, enabled agents of the Crown to hold lands previously owned by participants in the 1715 rebellion. These agents, called "commissioners," could appoint new tenants to the lands. Superiors of the lands were forced to either sell their land to the Crown or accept new tenants selected by the commissioners. Petitioner, Alexander Duke of Gordon, was one such superior who had yet to sell his land in Clunie, Callart, and part of Lochiel. Alexander maintained that the commissioners of the Crown must pay an entry fine (approximately one year's rent) to hold his land. The commissioners of the Crown argued that they are not obligated to pay an entry fine. The Lords concluded that a superior was not entitled, upon an entry, to demand from the Crown's donatary, or trustee for the Crown's behalf, the composition of a year's rent.
Alexander-James Grant v. Countess of Sutherland 1773 Debt, Adjudication, Ranking of Creditors, Sequestration, Sasine, Title Alexander-James Grant petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor concerning the ranking of creditors. The Countess of Sutherland and her Tutors answered the petition, defending the existing determination of priority.
Andrew Gray and Others vs. David Wilson and Others 1790 Election contest, Election, Interlocutor, Adjudication, Aliment, Sequestration Andrew Gray and others pursued David Wilson and others regarding the contested election of magistrates and counsellors in Anstruther Easter, seeking to void the defenders' election and obtain a declaration that the pursuers were the lawfully chosen officers. The defenders maintained the validity of their election and the proper exercise of voting rights, while the parties disputed whether the presiding magistrate possessed an ordinary vote or merely a casting vote to be exercised only in cases of equality. The pursuers contended that the magistrate had no ordinary vote and could only break ties, whereas the defenders argued that Baillie Chalmers had no right to vote unless an equality of votes existed.
Arbuthnott v. Gilmour 1765 Debt, Adjudication, Succession, Reduction, Creditor, Trust John Arbuthnott petitioned the Court to overturn an interlocutor ordering him to convey a debt and diligence to the representatives of the late James Justice. Elizabeth Gilmour, Justice’s widow, answered, arguing that the assignation to Arbuthnott had been granted as collateral security rather than in trust.
Archibald and James Robertson v. John Laird 1793 Insurance, Adjudication, Penalty, Debt, Bill of Exchange, Deviation Archibald and James Robertson, insurance brokers in Greenock, petitioned the Court to alter a prior interlocutor pronounced in their action against John Laird, merchant there, regarding whether a voyage alteration had voided an insurance policy. The pursuers contended that a liberty to call at an English port imported a liberty to discharge at Hull by statute and custom, while Laird answered that the alteration rendered the policy void and subsequently denied that calling at a port implied any right to discharge there. The parties exchanged replies and duplies on the construction of the policy's port liberties and the validity of the coverage.
Archibald and James Robertson v. John Laird 1790 Adjudication, Arrestment, Aliment, Inhibition, Insurance, Defamation Thomas Cochran, weaver in Leith, filed answers to the petition of Margaret Clark, spouse of James Greig, sailor in Leith, responding to allegations of riot and damage. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Archibald Craig v. Emilia Brodie 1773 Succession, Debt, Adjudication, Aliment, Bill of Exchange, Sequestration Archibald Craig obtained a court order for payment of a debt owed to him by Emilia Brodie. After Emilia died, Craig sought to collect the funds from her daughter, Margaret Brodie, who had intromitted with the estate.
Archibald McLachlan v. Archibald McArthur Stewart 1789 Adjudication, Rent, Lease, Possession, Teinds, Tack Archibald M'Lachlan younger of Craigin-terve pursued a Bill of Advocation against Archibald McArthur Stewart, asking the Court to remit the sheriff-substitute's interlocutor ordering his removal from the lands of Letternamolt. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Ballingall v. Ogilvie 1769 Debt, Adjudication, Inhibition, Bankruptcy, Improbation, Succession John Ballingall, Writer in Dundee, pursued John Ogilvie of Rochelhill, objecting to an inhibition and minute of sale. Ogilvie answered the petition, and subsequently submitted a condescendence accounting for debt and expenses while claiming to investigate Ballingall's payment.
Bank of Scotland v. Chalmers 1796 Debt, Adjudication, Teind, Sequestration, Infeftment, Ranking and Sale The Bank of Scotland, pursuer, and William Ramsay reported on the state of debt and entitlements in the division of the estates of George Chalmers, defender. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Belchier v. Palmer 1776 Debt, Estate, Adjudication, Bankruptcy, Liferent, Succession In 1759, William Belchier purchased the estate of Grange in Scotland. Belchier died without children, leaving his estate to his older brother, John Belchier, in liferent and to his nephew, James-William Belchier, in fee. Several creditors of the decedent William Belchier brought actions of constitution and adjudication against his estate. Defenders Charlton Palmer and William Walker, creditors of William Belchier, sought a sale of William Belchier's estate and a ranking of the creditors. (The defenders mistakenly brought the action only against the liferenter, John Belchier, but later amended the action to include the apparent heir, James-William Belchier.) To expedite the process and reserve some of the estate for themselves, the pursuers also brought an action for the sale and ranking of the estate. This led to a dispute concerning which action—the creditors' or the apparent heirs'—should proceed.
Bell v. Magistrates of Glasgow 1776 Property, Sasine, Interlocutor, Adjudication, Aliment, Arrestment Pursuer Patrick Bell was the proprietor of a piece of land called Bellshaugh or Provost Haugh, situated along the River Clyde near Glasgow Green. Additionally, Bell claimed to own a small strip of land that was used for access to Bellshaugh. The magistrates of Glasgow purchased property on either side of this strip and sought to enclose the entire area. Bell protested, and the magistrates proposed two possible solutions. First, citing an Act of Parliament, they offered to build a fence on either side of the road and charge Bell for half of the construction cost. Alternatively, they proposed to erect a gate that could be used to access the road. Bell refused both proposals, claiming that the cited statute did not apply and that he had an absolute right to exclude the magistrates. The magistrates maintained that either accommodation—the fence or the gate—would be reasonable and equitable; they also suggested that Bell might only hold a servitude.
Birnie and Co. v. Weir 1799 Warranty, Debt, Aliment, Interlocutor, Adjudication, Succession Samuel Birnie and Co. sold “British potashes” for use as a bleaching agent. In certain printed materials, the company claimed that these British potashes had been “found to answer every purpose in bleaching, &c. equal to the best American pot.” Helen Weir of Longloch, the Defender, ordered several casks of the potashes for her bleaching business; however, she was dissatisfied with the product and refused to pay her bill. Samuel Birnie and Co. brought suit to collect on the account. In response, Mrs. Weir argued that the British potashes were inferior to American potashes and contained a “radical” latent defect: Although materials bleached with the British potashes initially appeared white, they turned a reddish or bluish color after being exposed to the air. Based on the resulting harms to her business, Mrs. Weir raised a claim for damages. Samuel Birnie and Co. maintained that British potashes were suitable for use in certain stages of the bleaching process, that the company’s representations had been made in good faith, and that Mrs. Weir had used the British potashes unskillfully. The court found that Mrs. Weir was not liable for the price of the potashes and awarded her damages.
Blyth v. Lord Dreghorn's Interlocutor 1789 Debt, Adjudication, Creditor, Arrestment, Aliment, Succession Walter Blyth, as pursuer, presented a petition challenging an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Dreghorn. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Boyd (Provost of Linlithgow) v. Cunningham 1832 Interlocutor, Suspension, Expenses, Adjudication, Sist, Corporation Cuninghams & Bell, W.S., asked the Court to allow them to sist themselves as parties in the suspension between pursuer John Boyd and defender George Cunninghame, seeking to repeat the interlocutor in their favour. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Brodie v. Grant 1767 Interlocutor, Adjudication, Possession, Tack, Reduction, Appeal Alexander Brodie of Lethen, as pursuer, sought to retain possession of the pool of Stockiebanks on the River Findhorn until the boundary of his fishing rights against Sir Ludovick Grant of Grant, Sir Alexander Grant of Delvey, Sir William Dunbar of Durn, Captain Duncan Urquhart of Burdieyards, and others, as defenders, could be finally ascertained. The defenders disputed Brodie’s fishing rights, leading to answers, replies, and duplies. In 1769, the respondents petitioned against the Lords’ affirmation of an amended interlocutor defining the Findhorn boundary, alleging contradictory judgments and complaining that the boundary had been expanded unexpectedly through judicial admission.
Brown v. Dundas 1793 Adjudication, Statute, Fraud, Forfeiture, Penalty, Forgery Dundas, as defender, argued in an information that the statute under which Brown prosecuted them did not authorize the seizure of unstamped starch without prior notice or opportunity to comply. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Brown v. Maxwell 1772 Ministers, Adjudication, Aliment, Arrestment, Contract, Property rights The pursuer, Richard Brown, was a minister in Lochmaben. He claimed that the magistrates of the burgh harbored ill will towards him and sought to inconvenience or harass him. Among other actions, the magistrates ordered a barn on Brown's property to be destroyed, removed trees from his glebe, and reduced his seating in the kirk (church). The Lord Ordinary found that the destruction of the barn was a legitimate action authorized by the parish of Lochmaben's heritors. Brown sought a review of the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor. He argued that while he had struck an agreement with the defenders to remove the barn, they had agreed to do so at a later date. The defenders sought to avoid liability damages by claiming that they had only followed the heritors' instructions.
Bruce and Selkrig v. Bruce and Others 1798 Debt, Adjudication, Entail, Succession, Sequestration, Teinds James Bruce and Charles Selkrig, Trustee, argued that the entail of Tillicoultry did not bar the sale of the estate to satisfy debts. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Cameron v. Cameron 1792 Lease, Succession, Tack, Aliment, Liferent, Adjudication Ro. Craigie petitioned the Court to alter the Lord Ordinary's interlocutors sustaining claims to the lands of Laick and Branahawn. The respondent argued that the lease of those lands secured by her father ought to be upheld notwithstanding contested settlements and allegations of hardship.
Campbell and Others, posterior Adjudgers v. The Common Agent for the Postponed Creditors in the Ranking of the Creditors of Charles Maclean of Kinlochaline 1801 Adjudication, Bankruptcy, Creditor, Debt, Statute, Decree of adjudication The creditors of Lieutenant-Colonel Charles Maclean, of Kinlochaline, proceeded to attach his estate. One adjudication was initiated by George Andrew; a subsequent adjudication was initiated by Henry Butter of Pitlochry. Additional creditors were conjoined in both Mr. Andrew’s proceeding and Mr. Butter’s. However, the common agent objected that the bankrupt act only authorized creditors to be conjoined in the first adjudication. After some creditors argued that Mr. Andrew’s adjudication not actually the first, an additional objection was raised to the conjoined creditors in that proceeding.
Chalmers, Leslie, & Seton v. Creditors of George Chalmers 1778 Debt, Adjudication, Ranking of Creditors, Sequestration, Trustee, Creditor The partnership of Chalmers, Leslie, and Seton sought to be ranked on the estate of George Chalmers of Pittencrieff. Several of Chalmers’s creditors objected on the ground that the firm’s creditors were already ranked.
Charles Addison and Sons v. William Duguid and Others 1792 Insurance, Adjudication, Statute, Contract, Act of Parliament, Debt In February 1791, the ship Leviathan, sailed from Borrowstounness for Greenland on a whaling expedition. The vessel's owners, Charles Addison and Sons, took out an insurance policy with William Duguid, Andrew M'Kenzie, George Robertson, and James Hunter for 90 butts of blubber, with a provision that the underwriters would pay for whatever portion less than 90 the vessel returned with. The Leviathan was delayed at Stromness, Orkney for several weeks, and when the ship returned to its home port with only 3 or 4 butts, Addison and Sons sought to collect on the insurance. Their attempt to cash in the policy led to litigation in the Admiralty Court where the Judge Admiral initially ruled for the underwriters, before subsequently ruling against them on the Addisons' appeal. Duguid, M'Kenzie, Robertson, and Hunter asked the Court of Session to reverse the Judge Admiral's ruling, arguing that the Leviathan's delay in the Orkney's voided the insurance policy. Addison and Sons in turn argued that their reading of 26 Geo. III, cap. 41 and 29 Geo. III supported their claims, and further argued that the insurance policy was actually a wager, an illegal gambling contract violative of 19th Geo. II.
Cheape and Lindsay v. Campbell and Creditors 1795 Debt, Adjudication, Creditor, Sale, Succession, Estate Donald Campbell petitioned to challenge Lord Dregborn's interlocutor permitting creditors James Lindsay and James Cheape to pursue separate adjudications against an estate Campbell was selling as apparent heir, arguing such actions were unnecessary and costly. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Chisholm v. Lord Gardenston's Interlocutor 1791 Aliment, Heritor, Contract, Tack, Adjudication, Sequestration William Chisholm petitioned the Court to alter Lord Gardenston's interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Clark v. Bell 1802 Statute of limitations, Literary Property, Copyright, Adjudication, Sale, Sequestration Andrew Bell, an engraver, included pages from James Clark's book in the Encyclopedia Britannica without permission. James Clark claimed that he had the copyright to the information, but Bell argued that the statute of limitations had expired on the claim. The case had originally been heard by a Lord Ordinary who had required Bell to return the pages to Clark. However, Bell appealed the statute of limitations issue to the higher court, which agreed with him that it was possible Clark's claim to the material had expired. As a result, the case was remanded to the Lord Ordinary to reconsider the penalty he had imposed requiring Bell to return the pages to Clark.

Note: Clark is indexed as "Clerk" in the digest.
Clark v. Macgill 1773 Res judicata, Title Dispute, Adjudication, Possession, Interlocutor, Reduction This case was about the disputed ownership of a small piece of property on Jeffry's Close, Glasgow. In 1763, before pursuer Peter Clark purchased his property on the close, defender James Macgill petitioned the dean of guild for a warrant to enclose the disputed area. James Herbertson, Clark’s predecessor, failed to mount a challenge. However, by the time Macgill was ready to start work on the project, Clark had purchased Herbertson’s former property, which he understood to include the area proposed for enclosure. Clark complained to the dean of guild that the enclosure would be an encroachment. The dean-of-guild court ruled for Macgill, finding that the matter had been decided in the earlier proceeding, and Clark sought review. Case documents name numerous property owners and tenants in The Bridgegate (or Goosedubs) area of Glasgow.
Clay v. Coulter 1770 Debt, Adjudication, Arrestment, Insurance, Interlocutor, Reduction Pursuers Clay and Midgley, merchants in Liverpool, purchased tobacco on several occasions from McKittrick and Company, located in Virginia. To pay a balance due to Clay and Midgley, McKittrick and Company sent a shipment of tobacco to them in November 1761. Clay and Midgley obtained insurance on this shipment from defender James Coulter, a merchant in Glasgow. The ship sailed from Virginia for Liverpool, but it was captured by a French privateer in February 1762. Learning of the capture, Clay and Midgley sought to recover their losses from the insurance policy. Coulter insisted on retaining the sums he underwrote in the insurance policy, claiming that he was also a creditor of the McKittrick Company. Coulter argued that the insurance payments were debt payments to him. He contended that the cargo remained the property of McKittrick and Company until it was delivered at Liverpool to the consignees. As such, the cargo was claimable by creditors. Clay and Midgley respond that, under the established law of merchants, the consignees had an exclusive interest in the goods that the consignor's creditors could not defeat.
Common Agent v. Corrie 1794 Adjudication, Interlocutor, Execution, Personal Objection, Courts, Expenses Common Agent petitioned the court, arguing that Corrie's decree of cognition was void because it had not been properly notified. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Countess of Loudon, and Others v. The Trustees on the High Roads in Ayrshire 1792 Jurisdiction, Trustees, Appeal, Sequestration, Act of Parliament, Adjudication The Countess of Loudoun and others pursued the Trustees on the High Roads in Ayrshire regarding the proposed suppression of the road by Crawfordland-bridge, while the Trustees and associated justices of the peace defended the road's continued operation. The Trustees initially challenged the Court's jurisdiction to review their proceedings, then argued in subsequent pleadings that the road served public convenience and must be kept open. The parties exchanged answers, replies, and duplies contesting both the Court's authority to intervene and whether the road should remain open or be suppressed.
Countess of Sutherland v. Dunbar 1783 Register of Sasines (Deeds), Burden of Proof, Presumption, Debt, Adjudication, Register In a ranking and sale, William Dunbar of Fulfordlees submitted a claim based on a heritable bond of corroboration. The petitioners objected to Dunbar’s claim on the ground that the seisin (possession of land by freehold) on the bond was not properly registered. In particular, they argued that there was no evidence that the seisin had been registered within the legally prescribed time period. In response, Dunbar produced an extract from the Inverness burgh register. The extract showed that the seisin had been recorded without a date, like other registrations from the same time period. According to Dunbar, this established a presumption that the seisin was timely registered, and it was the petitioners’ burden to rebut that presumption.
Cowan v. M'Intosh and Others 1795 Adjudication, Interest, Disposition, Feu duties, Rent, Feu Robert Cowan petitioned the Court to overturn an interlocutor that had dismissed his process against Mary and Katharine Gordon, the exposers of lands in Blythwoodholme. M'Intosh and others, as respondents, opposed the suspension by arguing that Cowan had breached the articles of roup by failing to grant bond for the purchase price and drawing rents without security.
Crawford v. Boyd 1765 Debt, Shipping, Interlocutor, Oath, Creditor, Adjudication Hugh Crawfurd, James and William Aitkens, Hector Fairie, John Fisher, John Crawfurd, and Hugh Craig petitioned the Court to remit an interlocutor finding them liable for goods shipped at the Isle of Man on their account. John Boyd and others, as executors-creditors of Patrick Ewing, answered, contending that the obligation letters were not probative of delivery or receipt. The litigation thus turned on the evidentiary sufficiency of the obligation letters to support the finding of liability.
Crawford, et al v. Morrison, et al 1787 Election contest, Aliment, Election, Mala Fides, Adjudication, Inhibition Thomas Crawford, Charles Pirrie, Alexander Paterson, and John Gardner pursued John Morrison and others to have Morrison’s election as Deacon of the Incorporation of Wrights in Glasgow declared void. The respondents defended the 1787 election as having proceeded by lawful procedure and majority vote, and further averred that the complainants had themselves accepted office under the contested appointment.
Crawfurd's Trustees v. Hart's Relict 1801 Aliment, Succession, Trustees, Marriage, Adjudication, Trust This case determined whether Janet Hart could claim the legal entitlements available to a widow. Hart cohabited with the decedent, William Crawford, for thirty years and produced children with him. However, the couple declared their marriage just 10 months before Crawford’s death. Under Scots law, this raised the question whether Hart was entitled to the jus relictae—a widow’s right in the movable estate of her deceased spouse.
Creditors of Dunbar v. Grant 1793 Bankruptcy, Debt, Creditor, Adjudication, Reduction, Arrestment Alexander Penrose Cuming and other creditors of Thomas Dunbar of Westfield had obtained an interlocutor voiding, under the 1621 Act, a bond of corroboration granted by the bankrupt to Sir James Grant of Grant, Baronet, as a fraudulent preference. Grant petitioned for reconsideration, contending the bond was merely a lawful acknowledgment of debt and not a preference. The creditors answered, defending the interlocutor and responding to Grant's claims regarding the validity of the instrument.
Creditors of Hay v. Fleming 1793 Debt, Creditor, Adjudication, Bill of Exchange, Interlocutor, Bankruptcy James Fleming, defender in the action by the creditors of Hay, petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor that had excluded him from an adjudication upon the debtor’s Scottish property, maintaining that his claim was liquidated by bill and sufficiently authenticated by protest and affidavit notwithstanding the original instrument’s absence abroad. He sought to overturn the Inner-House ruling and obtain remit to the Lord Ordinary to lead further proof of his debt’s verity.
Creditors of Hynd v. M'Kechny 1777 Expenses, Adjudication, Rent, Interlocutor, Oath, Creditor 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.
Creditors of John Horn 1791 Sequestration, Creditor, Trustee, Adjudication, Interlocutor, Statute George Wilson, trustee for the creditors of John Horn, petitioned to alter an interlocutor allowing individual creditors to adjudicate post-sequestration, citing statutory prohibition and the risk of confusion or penalty preference. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Creditors of Kenneth Mackenzie v. His Children 1792 Creditor, Adjudication, Statute, Arrestment, Debt, Interlocutor The creditors of Kenneth Mackenzie, as pursuers, contended against his children, as defenders, that adjudications made without intimation were void and null, as set forth in the Information of John Peter du Rouvray and others. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Cunningham v. Veitch 1791 Adjudication, Property, Prescription, Possession, Sasine, Teinds The Merchants in Edinburgh, defenders, answered a petition by James Cunningham, pursuer, asserting that Covenant Close was their private property and not a common passage, citing historical deeds and a former gate. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.

Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 1528)