An attachment of money or goods belonging to the debtor, as owing by or in the hands of a garnishee. But it may not only be obtained after judgment, when it is called an Arrestment in Execution, but during the progress of an action, when it is called an Arrestment on the Dependence,—or at the commencement of an action against a foreigner, when the Court has not otherwise jurisdiction over him, and when it is therefore called an Arrestment ad jurisdictionem fundandam. In any case it may be "loosed" on application of the debtor, either simply, when it nad been improperly obtained, or on the debtor depositing the amount of the debt in Court, or giving security for it. If not loosed the arrestment is carried into effect, on the debt being established, by an action against the holder of the money or goods, called an action of forthcoming.

Definition source

Kinnear, J. B., Digest of House of Lords Cases Decided on Appeal from Scotland, 1709-1864 — Glossary of Scottish Law Terms (Edinburgh, 1865). Public domain.

Legal Subject: Arrestment

Case	Date	Legal Subject	Abstract
A. Keltie v. R. Wilson	1827	Debt, Poinding, Sist, Inhibition, Diligence, Arrestment	Andrew Keltie of Gelvan petitioned the Court against Robert Wilson, writer in Edinburgh, seeking relief from an illegal poinding executed in violation of a court-ordered stay. Keltie alleged that Wilson had poinded during a sist on a bill of suspension, breaching procedural protections and amounting to contempt of court. The litigation proceeded from an initial petition for redress to a Revised Case arguing that such poinding during suspension constituted contempt.
Alexander Bennet v. David Maxwell	1787	Tack, Arrestment, Debt, Lease, Rent, Sasine	Alexander Bennet, as pursuer, challenged a tenant’s missive as invalid for lacking formality or stamp, and David Maxwell, as defender, responded asserting the missive’s validity under pacta esse servanda. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Alexander Melvil v. James Barclay	1777	Currente Termino, Ranking of Creditors, Arrestment, Void Poinding	This case concerns a competition between Alexander Melvil and the other creditors of James Davie, brewer in Cupar, whose affairs went into disorder in the summer of 1775. Davie's moveable effects were sold by public roup (auction) that September, under the authority of the Sheriff of Fife. Alexander Melvil had previously executed a void poinding on these effects and entered a claim to them on this basis, which the Sheriff rejected. After the poinding was carried out by Robert Stark, the sequestrator, Melvil contested the goods once again. On August 5, 1777, Lord Braxfield found Melvil's claims to the goods preferable to Davie's other creditors and servant's wages. The other creditors of Davie then petitioned the Court to review Braxfield's interlocutors. In addition to asking the court to deny Melvil's claim, they also argued that the wages of James Barclay, late servant to James Davie, formed a disadvantage case, and should be given preference. The Court ruled that wages were to be considered privileged debts, and preferable to Melvil's claim.
Anderson v. Creditors of Arnot	1792	Arrestment, Trustee, Creditor, Multiple-Poinding, Assignation, Debt	Lilias Anderson, as pursuer, petitioned against an interlocutor issued by Lord Dregborn in her case against the creditors of Arnot. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
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.
Belch [Belsh] v. Wilson and Son	1788	Arrestment, Creditor, Bill of Exchange, Forgery, Debt, Sequestration	Peter Belsh, a merchant in Stirling, charged William Wilson and Son, merchants in Bannockburn, over a discounted bill involving indorsers. Wilson and Son suspended the charge and subsequently submitted an information contending that their subscription to the promissory note was a forgery and therefore void.
Benjamin Greig v. John Scott	1829	Debt, Arrestment, Creditor, Disposition, Sasine, Sale	Benjamin Greig, as pursuer, sought declarator, multiplepoinding, and exoneration against defender John Scott with respect to lands conveyed under bond to secure a £3000 debt, following unsuccessful sale attempts and disputes regarding title. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Bernard Love v. George Foster	1832	Arrestment, Sequestration, Rent, Caution, Aliment, Factor	Bernard Love, as pursuer, lodged a reclaiming note against Lord Moncreiff's interlocutor in his action against George Foster, defender. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
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.
Brebner v. Brebner	1767	Arrestment, Cautioner	Helen Brebner, as executor for her deceased husband, gave her brother, Alexander Brebner, use of select estate funds. Helen won an action to retrieve this money from Alexander, and he challenged this judgment. Helen's husband, James Frigge, died in 1756, after naming Helen executor of his considerable finances, which consisted mainly of bills and bonds. When Helen received money for payments of debts due to her former husband, she allowed her brother Alexander use of these funds. Helen claimed that she put the money in Alexander's hands after he advised her that allowing him to invest the money in trade would increase the funds. Helen argued that as Alexander's credit declined and as he fell into debt, she sought to get back the money, which he refused. Alexander claimed, alternatively, that Helen had put the money in his hands for security as she drew on him for funds as needed. Eventually, Alexander argued, he became dissatisfied with Helen's management of the finances and refused to allow Helen any additional money. Alexander offered Alexander Ogilvie of Culvie as his cautioner, to which Helen did not consent based on the state of his finances.
Briggs v. Stark and Balfour	1778	Hypothec, Arrestment	This case was about the effect of a landlord’s “hypothec,” which was a right to retain or recover the fruits of leased property as security for rent. David Peebles, a tenant, fell behind on rent that was due to his landlord, Janet Balfour. Balfour obtained a Sheriff’s decree to sequester Peebles’s crops; the order covered the current year’s rent, as well as past and future years. Defender Robert Stark, as sequestrator, auctioned off the crops and used the proceeds to compensate Balfour. However, John Briggs, another creditor of Peebles, challenged Balfour’s right to anything more than the current year’s rent. Stark and Balfour responded that the Sheriff’s decree entitled Balfour to any proceeds up to the amount of her entire claim. The Sheriff found no balance due by Stark to Peebles, and Briggs' arrestment was rendered useless. Briggs then submitted his case to the Court of Session by bill of advocation, and it came before Lord Alva. Alva ultimately repelled the reasons of advocation and Briggs petitioned the Court to alter this decision. Marginalia on the case documents indicates that the Court may have indeed altered Alva's decision.
Cadell v. Johnstone	1798	Defamation, Arrestment, Libel, Proof, Aliment, Interlocutor	John Cadell of Cockenzie pursued John Johnstone, printer in Edinburgh. Johnstone petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor, and Cadell filed answers opposing the petition. The defender subsequently submitted evidence in support of his libel claim against Cadell, detailing alleged violence and misconduct during Tranent militia enforcement.
Campbell v. Easterby	1797	Arrestment, Debt, Sequestration, Creditor, Reduction, Interlocutor	James Campbell petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor regarding an arrested vessel, and George Easterby answered, arguing that Campbell’s bond of caution did not conform to the Admiral’s interlocutor and that the arrestment had caused no diminution in the ship’s value. The dispute thus turned on the sufficiency of the security offered and the effect of the seizure upon the vessel’s valuation.
Campbell v. Stuart	1794	Sasine, Libel, Teinds, Reversion, Prescription, Arrestment	Andrew Stuart petitioned against an interlocutor of Lord Frederick Campbell that assoilzied Campbell from the counter-action raised by Stuart. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Chalmers v. Lord Stonefield's Interlocutor	1798	Debt, Arrestment, Creditor, Trustees, Expenses, Tack	Thomas Chalmers petitioned the Court to overturn an interlocutor issued by Lord Stonefield. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Children of Macneil v. Reps. of Campbell, et al	1793	Succession, Wadset, Aliment, Arrestment, Debt, Creditor
Clifford and Sons v. Mosman	1772	Poinding, Arrestment, Ranking of Creditors	John Syme and Son, merchants in Leith, owed money to Clifford and Son, pursuer, merchants in Amsterdam. Due to the nature of the transaction, the money was required to pass through the hands of William Hogg and Son, merchants in Edinburgh. (In the transaction, another person, Archibald Maclean, advanced money to William Hogg and Son, which they in turn gave to John Syme and Son. McLean was then reimbursed by Clifford and Son). William Hogg and Son subsequently encounter financial problems, which raised the possibility that its creditors would to collect the money. Clifford and Son sought to avoid this possibility. Hugh Mosman, a writer in Edinburgh and creditor of William Hogg and Son, claimed an interest in the payment from John Syme and Son to William Hogg and Son. Clifford and Son disputed Mosman's claim by arguing that they were entitled to the payment because they provided the funds in the first place.
Competition Among the Creditors of Macfarlane	1766	Debt, Arrestment, Shipping	This case was a dispute among the creditors of David Macfarlane, a merchant of St. Christophers (St. Kitts). In 1764, Macfarlane sent a shipment of sugar from St. Croix to Port Glasgow, consigning it to James King. Macfarlane instructed King to sell the sugar and apply the proceeds to pay certain of Macfarlane’s creditors, who were set forth in a list. When the sugar arrived in Scotland, however, some of Macfarlane’s creditors sought an arrestment. This led to a competition among Macfarlane’s creditors. In the course of the proceeding, the Lord Ordinary ruled that the consigned sugar could not be arrested, and a group of joint petitioners sought review. In August 1766, the Court of Session ruled against them. In November 1766, Messrs. Greenshiels and Wardrope petitioned the court again, this time on their own, arguing that they should be treated differently from other creditors because they did not receive notice of the shipment. In December 1766 the Court adhered to its earlier interlocutor.
Crawford, et al v. Wilson, et al	1794	Justices of Peace, Interdict, Statute, Common Law, Arrestment, Suspension
Crawfords v. Russell, et al	1789	Succession, Aliment, Trustee, Debt, Arrestment, Disposition	Agnes and Margaret Crawfurds, as pursuers, argued that they were absolute fiars during their lives and that their children were heirs to the sums bequeathed in fee. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Creditors for William Hunter v. David Armstrong and William Johnstone	1778	Bankruptcy, Creditor, Debt, Aliment, Fraud, Arrestment	Creditors of the bankrupt William Hunter, joined by His Majesty’s Advocate, pursued David Armstrong, advocate, and William Johnstone, writer to the signet, as art and part guilty of Hunter’s fraudulent bankruptcy and the concealment of his effects following Hunter’s flight from Scotland in 1777. The pursuers alleged that the defenders had assisted in secret transactions and the hiding of assets to the prejudice of creditors, while Armstrong and Johnston denied complicity, maintaining they had acted on counsel and in good faith. The litigation proceeded through mutual condescendences, answers denying fraud, and repeated petitions and reclaiming petitions concerning the relevancy of proof and the Court’s interlocutors.
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 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.
Creditors of Newlands v. Mackenzie	1792	Creditor, Debt, Proof, Arrestment, Reduction, Bill of Exchange	Andrew Mackenzie petitioned the Court to alter the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor requiring him to produce title-deeds before receiving payment of his account. The creditors of Newlands answered that Mackenzie ought to be paid without producing the writings.
Cunningham & Co. v. Craigie	1789	Insurance, Arrestment, Deviation, Creditor, Debt, Prize	William Cunningham and Company, merchants in Glasgow, pursued Laurence Craigie and other insurers to overturn Lord Dreghorn's interlocutor that assoilzied the defenders, seeking recovery under a 1783 policy. The defenders answered that the policy was void for concealment of a voyage to Charlestown carrying British troops and for material alteration of the terms from a voyage to St Thomas. The pursuers subsequently petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor, while the respondents denied any knowing intent to deviate to Charlestown and maintained that the policy covered only the voyage to St Thomas with a convoy call serving as a risk-reducing clause.
Cunningham and Simpson v. Sir George Home, Baronet, and the Commissioners for raising Seamen at the Port of Leith	1795	Debt, Arrestment, Statute, Common Law, Contract, Jurisdiction	Cunningham and Simpson petitioned the Court to alter the interlocutor of Lord Dreghorn, Ordinary on the bills, which had refused a bill of suspension in the matter of apprentices Dowie, Stewart, and Drysdale. They subsequently sought suspension of the judgment and interdict against Sir George Home, Baronet, and the Commissioners for raising Seamen at the Port of Leith, and their officers, regarding the levying and carrying away of apprentices Dowie and Stewart.
David and Hugh Mitchell v. William Ferguson	1779	Arrestment	These case documents constitute a prelude to the reported case of David and Hugh Mitchell v. William Ferguson. In 1769, Agnes Carsan purchased a house in Ayr from William Donald. Because she believed her son-in-law to be holding money for the house on her behalf, no bills or securities were filed, and the disposition of the house was held by James Fergusson, Provost and writer in Ayr. Later William Donald became bankrupt and arrestments (securities) were laid in the hands of Carsan and Hair-Campbell. William Ferguson, claiming that he had paid Donald for the price of the house on behalf of Carsan, brought action against Carsan for either a disposition of the house or repayment. On March 3, 1779 the Court ruled that Ferguson was entitled to either the price or a disposition on the house. Donald's creditors, David and Hugh Mitchell, later brought action, in competition with Fergusson for rights to the house. On February 13, 1781 the Court determined that the infeftment (legal claim) possessed by the Mitchells was preferable to the personal right claimed by Fergusson.
David Clyne v. James Trail and David Hendersson, (Williamson's Trustees)	1830	Debt, Arrestment, Creditor, Assignation, Trustee, Sequestration	David Clyne raised a summons of forthcoming against James Traill, trustee for the creditors of the late Lieutenant-Colonel Benjamin Williamson, and David Henderson, factor, to recover funds held in trust for Kenneth Fraser. Traill and Henderson defended the action on the ground that they were not in possession of the funds at the time of the arrestment. They subsequently lodged a reclaiming note asking the Court to alter the interlocutor of which they complained.
Donald McDonald v. His Creditors	1780	Debt, Bankruptcy, Aliment, Sequestration, Arrestment, Creditor	Documents are available. Full description in progress.
Douglas v. Mason	1796	Debt, Arrestment, Creditor, Assignation, Bankruptcy, Trustee	Douglas petitioned the Court to alter the interlocutors of Lord Swinton Ordinary in a multiple-poinding process regarding a legacy held by a trustee. Mason argued that an arrestment laid upon the legacy was valid and took priority over an assignation made by a bankrupt son to his mother.
Douglas, Heron, & Company v. William Riddick	1791	Debt, Arrestment, Cautioner, Creditor, Prescription, Sequestration	William Riddick, as defender, petitioned the Court to alter Lord Dreghorn’s interlocutor against him at the instance of Douglas, Heron, & Company, arguing that the bond in question fell under the septennial limitation for cautionary engagements and that the decree lacked valid diligence. The respondents answered, asserting that the bond was not for immediate debt and that Riddick was barred from the benefit of the limitation by dolo. Riddick thereafter petitioned the Inner House to overturn its interlocutor on the ground that the cautionary obligation was subject to the septennial limitation.
Duncan Davidson and Charles Graham v. John Fraser and his Attornies	1798	Bankruptcy, Debt, Arrestment, Creditor, Jurisdiction, Adjudication	Duncan Davidson and Charles Graham challenged an interlocutor dismissing their bond claim against George Gun Munro, contending that an English bankruptcy commission had not transferred their debt to assignees for enforcement in Scotland. They subsequently answered a petition by John Fraser, responding to the Court's interlocutor on questions of creditor ranking and the validity of diligence.
Faculty of Advocates v. Rae	1832	Bankruptcy, Debt, Fraud, Creditor, Arrestment, Sequestration	The Dean and Faculty of Advocates opposed William Rae's admission to the Faculty on Trial, arguing that he should not be admitted to the Office of Advocate notwithstanding a remit previously granted in his favor. Rae answered the Faculty's allegations, defending his qualifications and right to admission against their opposition.
Forbes v. Magistrates of Canongate	1791	Arrestment, Debt, Creditor, Jurisdiction, Cautioner, Oath	Archibald Forbes, creditor of Alexander Robertson, pursued the Magistrates of Canongate for unlawfully releasing Robertson from imprisonment for debt, alleging the liberation contravened the 1671 Act because the health certificate was unsworn and granted unrestricted liberty. The magistrates answered that they had not breached the act, maintaining that Robertson’s health had been sufficiently established by certificates on soul and conscience.
Fraser, Reid and Sons v. Lancaster and Jamieson	1793	Arrestment, Bill of Exchange, Diligence, Citation, Horning, Statute	Fraser, Reid and Sons claimed preferential rights to goods held in Coats’s custody, asserting priority based on protested bills for specific cargoes and challenging arrestments later laid by Lancaster and Jamieson. The defenders lodged duplies disputing the validity of the arrestments and the question of preference, responding to the pursuers’ replies.
Gentle v. Heritors of Crieff	1792	Debt, Heritor, Aliment, Contract, Arrestment, Interlocutor	James Gentle, writer in Edinburgh, pursued the Heritors of Crieff for exoneration from a bond of caution and relief from expenses arising from a church contract, contending that unpaid shares and material cost increases since 1778 rendered the Heritors liable for the losses. The Heritors answered that the loss was Gentle's own, and the cause proceeded through replies and duplies disputing the contractual responsibility. William Lumsdain separately petitioned for remit of answer expenses and delivery of his bond of caution, and after the Heritors petitioned to alter an Inner-house interlocutor, Gentle responded reaffirming his claim for exoneration based on the church cost claims.
George Binnie v. Neil M'Millan	1831	Aliment, Debt, Arrestment, Security	George Binnie, mariner in Greenock, served as suspender against Niel M'Millan, grocer in Cartsdyke, reclaiming against Lord Mackenzie's interlocutor which found that no expenses were due to the suspender. M'Millan argued in response that Binnie was not entitled to aliment because he had refused to sign an obligation for peace. The litigation turned on whether a suspender who declined to give security for the peace could recover expenses or maintain a claim for aliment.
George Crichton v. William Bell and William Downe Gillon	1832	Bankruptcy, Debt, Creditor, Arrestment, Sequestration, Trustee	George Crichton pursued William Bell and William Downe Gillon regarding expenses. After Lord Mackenzie pronounced an interlocutor finding that no expenses were due to either party, Bell reclaimed against that determination, submitting notes asking the Court to alter the finding and declare him entitled to his expenses or to remit them when taxed.
Gordon of Cluny v. John Anderson	1801	Lease, Damages, Interlocutor, Tack, Sequestration, Arrestment	Lieutenant-Colonel John Gordon of Cluny raised an action of damages against John Anderson and others, seeking reparation for their failure to use the fodder of the way-going crop in accordance with lease regulations. The defenders lodged additional defences maintaining that the action was incompetent, and subsequently argued that the pursuer had no equitable claim for straw lost due to interdict and that they were entitled to be assoilzied. The litigation concerned the application of lease regulations to the fodder of the last crop following a House of Lords judgment on the interpretation of the lease.
Gourlay v. Glen	1786	Debt, Arrestment, Creditor, Interlocutor, Promissory note, Sequestration	David Gourlay of Kipdarroch, Deputy-Collector of Supply for the County of Stirling, pursued William Glen regarding competing claims to funds held by John Campbell. The dispute concerned priority between Gourlay’s revenue claim and Glen’s claim to a debt due from John Price. Gourlay initially petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor sustaining Campbell’s defence against Glen; Glen subsequently petitioned to reverse Lord Swinton’s interlocutor decerning against him, and Gourlay answered, maintaining his priority over the consigned funds.
Grant v. Thomson	1776	Debt, Arrestment	Pursuer John Grant was a creditor of John Taylor, who became insolvent and unable to repay Grant. Grant obtained two letters of horning against Taylor for his failure to repay. Grant learned that defender George Thomson, an innkeeper in Leith, was a debtor of Taylor. Grant used arrestments to bring an action against Thomson for the sum he owed to Taylor. Thomson had granted two bills payable to Taylor for the sum owed, which were then indorsed by Taylor to defender Alexander Ogilvie as clerk of the Edinburgh rope-work company. (Taylor owed money to this company for the purchase of ropes and sails.) The defenders argued that sums due by bill were not subject to arrestment. Grant conceded that this was true in the case of a bona fide indorsee. Grant maintained, however, that the bills were subject to arrestment where transactions were used to shield a debtor's assets from creditors. The defenders responded that the transactions at issue were bona fide and arms-length transactions.
Grants v. Nicol	1796	Arrestment, Creditor, Contract, Debt, Bankruptcy, Heritor	William Grant, Daniel Grant, and Alexander Grant petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor of Lord Swinton concerning their claim to payment preference for work completed after Cruickshanks' default under a contract for church construction. David Monypenny, appearing for the respondent Nicol, submitted a memorial arguing that Nicol was entitled to preference over the petitioners in recovering payment for timber supplied under the contract.
Grinlay &c v. Lord Gardenstone's Interlocutor	1792	Arrestment, Sequestration, Hypothec, Roup, Possession, Rent	Grinlay and others petitioned the court to revise Lord Gardenstone’s interlocutor, arguing that as bona fide purchasers at public sale they were not liable for furniture from Mrs. Campbell and that the sheriff’s rent preference was improper. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Haig v. Lord Swinton's Interlocutor	1786	Debt, Creditor, Succession, Arrestment, Passive Title, Bill of Exchange	James Haig petitioned against Lord Swinton's interlocutor, asserting that he had incurred no universal passive title as a vitious intromitter. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Hamilton v. Scott	1797	Jurisdiction, Aliment, Interlocutor, Arrestment, Debt, Libel	The Reverend John Scott petitioned against an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Methven. Thomas Hamilton, Treasurer for the Poor of Avondale, answered the petition, asserting that the justices of the peace had jurisdiction and that the decree was regular.
Hammond, Birket, and Smith v. Marshall	1784	Arrestment	Hammond, Birket, and Smith, pursuers, attempted to arrest (legally claim) funds in the hands of Claud Marshall, a writer in Glasgow, on the ground that Claud possessed funds belonging to their debtor William Marshall. William was in Tobago, and he had sent a bill to Claud with instructions to apply it for the support of William’s daughters. Hammond, Birket, and Smith argued that Claud possessed the bill when the arrestment was used. Claud responded that he had sent the bill off to London by that time, and that payment was made to William’s children.
His Majesty's Advocate v. Muir	1797	Libel, Verdict, homicide, Arrestment, Aliment, Trial	Thomas Muir, soldier in the 65th Regiment of Foot and defender, argued that he could not be convicted of culpable homicide if indicted only for murder. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Home, et al v. Macknight	1797	Debt, Arrestment, Creditor, Jurisdiction, Bill of Exchange, Fraud	The Common Agent in the Locality of Roxburgh filed answers on behalf of Macknight, defender, responding to objections by James Home of Carlfide and other pursuers to interlocutors concerning teind valuation and victual allocation. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Huggan v. Gray	1794	Bill of Exchange, Diligence, Interlocutor, Bankruptcy, Arrestment, Debt	Huggan petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor against the suspender George Jardine and to find the letters orderly proceeded. Gray responded, arguing that Huggan lacked proper title to proceed in diligence and that no due notification of dishonour had been made to him.
Hunt v. Wilson and Robb	1786	Arrestment, Diligence, Sist, Sequestration, Debt, Lis Alibi Pendens	John Wilson and James Robb, as present Provost and Jailor, argued that they were not liable to William Love because a lis pendens barred diligence from the pursuer Hunt’s bill-chamber appearance. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.