Legal Subject: Bankruptcy

Case	Date	Legal Subject	Abstract
Air v. Johnston	1786	Debt, Bankruptcy, Fraud, Creditor, Disposition, Infeftment	William Air, merchant in Coldstream and trustee for the creditors of Robert Johnston, baker and feuar there, petitioned to alter the Lord Ordinary’s interlocutor, citing that a heritable bond held by Thomas Johnston of Templehall was invalid under the Act of 1696. Johnston answered, defending his heritable security against the trustee’s claim that it was liable to be set aside.
Archer v. Lord Eskgrove's Interlocutor	1793	Cautioner, Creditor, Reduction, Interlocutor, Succession, Bankruptcy
Baines v. Turnbull	1794	Debt, Bill of Exchange, Creditor, Bankruptcy, Interest, Factor	Baines, the suspender, argued against Turnbull that he was not liable for bills dishonoured through no fault of his own. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Black v. Allason	1788	Bankruptcy, Debt, Creditor, Disposition, Reduction, Sasine	William Black, carrier and portioner in Falkirk and pursuer, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor against defender Allason. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Cairns v. Common Agent in Ranking of Newlaw	1791	Debt, Interest, Bankruptcy, Sale, Cautioner, Agent	Thomas Cairns of Dundrenan, Esquire, petitioned the Court against the Common Agent in Ranking of Newlaw. He sought exoneration from the price of lots 1st and 7th of the estate of the deceased David Currie and delivery up of the bond.
Campbells v. Macneil	1798	Debt, Prescription, Execution, Bankruptcy, Oath, Citation	Colin Campbell and Duncan Campbell junior, as trustees on the sequestrated estate of Alexander M'Corquodale, pursued John Macneil of Gigha to alter an interlocutor of Lord Armadale regarding an account libelled against him. Macneil answered, pleading that the account was prescribed and the execution false. The parties thereafter debated the proper interpretation of Macneil's oath and the validity of the citation.
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 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.
Curtis, et al. v. Chippendale	1794	Bankruptcy, Debt, Sequestration, Creditor, Compensation, Bill of Exchange	William Curtis, Ebenezer Maitland, and John Newman Caussmaker petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor regarding Edward Chippendale's claim as trustee on the sequestrated estate of William Macalpin and Company. The parties disputed whether Scottish law on compensation ought to be altered to conform to English practice, with the respondent defending the established Scottish doctrine and the petitioners arguing that Chippendale's claim was not well founded under that law.
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.
Drummond and Drummond, et al v. Barton, et al.	1793	Bankruptcy, Debt, Ranking of Creditors, Sequestration, Trustee, Creditor	The pursuers, as common agent and creditors of Hugh Seton, argued against Barton, et al that company-creditors who drew dividends in France must communicate those sums before ranking on Seton’s Scottish funds. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Drummonds v. Seton, et al	1794	Bankruptcy, Debt, Liferent, Creditor, Trustees, Sequestration	Robert and Henry Drummonds, creditors of Hugh Seton, disputed with Archibald Seton, Hugh’s heir-male, over whether the liferent of a dividend from Hugh’s insolvent estate belonged to the creditors at large or to Archibald as heir. The Drummonds argued that Archibald could not rank for dividend until the full £8000 marriage provision was paid, or that he could be ranked for no more than the value of his father’s liferent-right as a debt in diem, while Archibald petitioned to reclaim the dividend, contending that trustees had to be satisfied from the marriage contract debt before creditors could claim the liferent. Robert Blair separately petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor, and the parties further disputed whether Hugh’s liferent right was vested and unconditional or conditional upon payment of the marriage provision.
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.
Dunmore v. Trustee for Buchanans	1796	Bankruptcy, Sequestration, Contract, Debt, Creditor, Trustee	Robert Dunmore, Esq. petitioned the Court of Session to alter a recent interlocutor pronounced in his litigation against the Trustee for Buchanans. He submitted an initial petition on 15 February 1797 seeking this relief, and subsequently presented an additional petition on 4 March 1797 reiterating his request that the Court modify its order.
Eden, et al. v. Anstruther, et al	1792	Debt, Cautioner, Creditor, Bankruptcy, Credit, Interlocutor	Messrs Eden, Ridley, and Co. pursued Sir John Anstruther, Dr Steuart Threipland, George Oswald, and the representatives of John Mackay for £2,000 under bonds of credit granted in 1776. The defenders denied liability, Anstruther contending that his bond was never operated upon by Robert Fall individually and that no money had been drawn under it, while Threipland, Oswald, and Mackay asserted that no account had been opened on their bond and that the claim exceeded its scope. The litigation involved petitions to alter interlocutors and to remit to the Lord Ordinary, together with arguments that the formation of a new copartnery following Charles Fall's death rendered prior interlocutors open to reconsideration and requests to lodge replies regarding cash-account practice.
Eden, Ridley, and Company v. Threipland, et al	1798	Debt, Bankruptcy, Cautioner, Interest, Creditor, Interlocutor	Eden, Ridley, and Company, as chargers, sought enforcement of a bond to recover interest calculated on each individual advance, disputing the position of Dr Stewart Threipland of Fingask and George Oswald of Auchincruive, as suspenders, that liability extended only to principal and interest accruing from the date of bankruptcy. The suspenders maintained that the chargers' demand for additional interest ran contrary to prior interlocutors and established accounting practices.
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 and Others v. Forrester & co	1794	Bankruptcy, Debt, Trustee, Creditor, Sequestration, Factor	Sir William Forbes and others, as pursuers, sought to establish Alexander Nairne as the proper trustee for the sequestrated estate of Peter Forrester and Company, while the creditors of that estate contended that Robert Forrester should be confirmed as trustee under the statute governing sequestrated estates. The parties presented competing memorials advancing their respective candidates for the office.
Francis Garbet and Company v. Their Creditors	1772	Bankruptcy, Sequestration	Francis Garbet, Charles Gascoigne, and Peter Capper entered into a partnership under the name Francis Garbet and Company. The partnership was in the business of conveying goods to and from London and other places along the coast of England. Due to financial difficulty, Gascoigne applied to the court to sequester the whole personal estate belonging to the partners and to appoint a factor to manage the partnership's property so that timely payments could be made to the partnership's creditors. George Home was appointed factor on the sequestration. Gascoigne then sought to withdraw or amend the application by claiming that he was unaware of the effect of this sequestration under Scots law, having received his formal education and training in England. Under the law of Scotland, creditors of a company can claim not only the company's property, but the personal property of the individual partners as well. Under the law of England, in contrast, creditors of a company can only draw on the personal property of the individual partners after private creditors of the individual partners have been satisfied. The partners of Francis Garbet and Company sought to sequester the partnership's estate only, not the individual estates of the partners.
Fraser, et al v. Sprott	1796	Common Law, Gambling, Interdict, Bankruptcy, Sequestration, Creditor	Patrick Frazer, Walter Berry, and Henry Farquharson pursued a process to remit a Magistrates' interdict against their private lottery, arguing that such lotteries were not prohibited by statute or common law. The respondent Sprott opposed the remit, contending that private lotteries constituted unlawful gaming and were injurious to public order and fair trade. The dispute centered on whether private lotteries were legally permissible or prohibited as harmful to the public.
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.
George v. Christie	1788	Sequestration, Creditor, Bankruptcy, Debt, Bill of Exchange, Aliment	George sought restitution of barley he had delivered to Alexander Dewar, an insolvent debtor who was actively seeking sequestration, alleging that Dewar had acted in mala fide. William Christie, a Stirling merchant, petitioned to alter the court’s interlocutor, asserting that his bill for the barley equated to cash and that he stood as a common creditor. The creditors of Dewar’s sequestrated estate answered Christie’s condescendence, contending that the grain had been fraudulently delivered to the bankrupt.
Gilbert Moses v. William Craig, Robert M'Lintock, and James Clark, Trustees for the Creditors of John M'Ewan	1772	Parole Evidence, Bankruptcy	John McEwen (alternatively spelled McEwan), a flax-dresser in Glasgow, went into bankruptcy. Defenders William Craig, Robert McLintock, and James Clerk were named trustees for the creditors in McEwen's bankruptcy. Pursuer Gilbert Moses, a meal-merchant in Glasgow, was one of McEwen's creditors. The trustees entered into a concert of joint measures, signed by the creditors, for the payment of McEwen's debts to the creditors. In contravention of this concert among the creditors, however, Moses joined McEwen in an action of reduction to overturn the sale and division of McEwen's effects. Among other points, Moses maintained that he was not allowed to read the creditors' agreement prior to signing it. Moses also argued that a tenement of houses that he bought from McEwen prior to McEwen's bankruptcy and in partial satisfaction of McEwen's debt to Moses should remain as Moses' property, and not conveyed to the trustees in McEwen's bankruptcy. The trustees argued that, by acceding to the concert among creditors, Moses agreed to set aside any preferences he may have had to McEwen's debts, including the tenement of houses.
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.
Hamilton v. MacTaggart	1793	Debt, Bankruptcy, Creditor, Bill of Exchange, Sequestration, Deed	William M'Taggart answered the petition of Messrs. Hamilton and Co. and James Provan and Co., who claimed that a sale of goods was void under the 1696 Act. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Harrisons v. Chippendale	1794	Bankruptcy, Debt, Sequestration, Trustee, Creditor, Bill of Exchange	The trustee argued that the Harrisons' claims were invalid for lack of indorsement and because they were founded upon post-bankruptcy acknowledgments. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Harrisons v. Chippendale, Trustee	1792	Bankruptcy, Compensation, Creditor, Bill of Exchange, Assignation, Debt	Harrisons, as assignees of Gibson and Johnson, claimed entitlement to rank on the estate of William M'Alpine and Company for the full amount of bills held as security for advances made to the firm. Edward Chippendale, trustee of the estate, argued that this claim was compensated by the value of bills which Gibson and Johnson had accepted and indorsed to M'Alpine and Company. The dispute thus turned on whether the assignees could recover the full amount of their secured debt or whether it was subject to compensation by the firm's separate claims against them.
Hart v. Lord Eskgrove's Interlocutor	1787	Debt, Creditor, Cautioner, Bill of Exchange, Bankruptcy, Diligence	James Hart, as pursuer, petitioned the Court of Session to alter an interlocutor issued by Lord Eskgrove. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Hay v. Thomson	1787	Debt, Creditor, Reduction, Assignation, Interlocutor, Bankruptcy	John Hay, trustee for the creditors of D. Loch, petitioned the Court of Session to alter Lord Rockville’s interlocutor, arguing that a 1770 assignation was void as a fraudulent preference under the 1696 Act because it was intimated after bankruptcy and constituted a fraud against Loch’s other creditors. James Thomson and the creditors of St Clair & Co. answered, contesting the validity of the translation and assignation under the statute. Hay petitioned again to alter the court’s interlocutor, maintaining that the assignation was an illegal preference.
Hay v. Watson	1832	Bankruptcy, Debt, Sequestration, Trustee, Creditor, Election contest	John Hay, stockbroker in Edinburgh, as pursuer, lodged a reclaiming note against the interlocutor finding the defender, Ebenezer Watson, duly elected trustee on the sequestrated estate of Robert M'Laren. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Henderson v. Inner-House Interlocutor	1789	Debt, Bankruptcy, Creditor, Aliment, Trustee, Interlocutor	Michael Henderson petitioned the Court of Session to alter a recent interlocutor issued by the Inner House. He presented an initial petition in March 1789, and subsequently presented a reclaiming petition in July 1789. The dispute concerned the Court's authority to review and modify its own prior interlocutory order.
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.
Inglis v. Bethune	1798	Cautioner, Debt, Assignation, Interlocutor, Bankruptcy, Action	William Inglis petitioned to reverse a court’s finding that defender William Bethune’s 1786 holograph bond was mere corroboration rather than new security, seeking to hold Bethune jointly liable for half the debt. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
James Blyth v. Maberly's Assignees	1832	Bankruptcy, Interdict, Sequestration, Arrestment, Debt, Creditor	James Blyth, as agent for John Maberly and Company and as holder of funds belonging to the firm, raised an action of multiplepoinding against Maberly's assignees to require them to produce their rights to the fund in his custody, while simultaneously seeking suspension of a warrant of seizure obtained by the assignees from the English bankruptcy court. The assignees demanded delivery of the property, disputing interdicts and asserting exclusive bankruptcy jurisdiction over all assets, and subsequently argued that the multiplepoinding was incompetent and unnecessary because the question of possession was already properly raised under the bill of suspension. The dispute thus centered on the conflict between Scottish multiplepoinding procedure and English bankruptcy jurisdiction.
James Lee v. The Executors of Robert Watson	1794	Debt, Bankruptcy, Creditor, Aliment, Sequestration, Succession	James Lee pursued the executors of Robert Watson for payment of a deed of provision he had purchased at public roup from the creditors of a bankrupt. Jean Watson petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor and remit the claim against her for the unpaid moiety of her provision, and the executors separately petitioned for alteration of the same interlocutor. Lee argued that retention of the provision for Mrs. Lumsdain’s aliment was not competent against the creditors of her bankrupt husband.
Jamieson, et al v. Andrew, et al	1786	Bankruptcy, Debt, Sequestration, Creditor, Aliment, Factor	John Jamieson and other creditors of Gavin Kempt petitioned the Court to overturn the election of James Campbell as interim factor, alleging that James Kempt’s creditor claim—which supported his vote in that election—was fraudulent and self-serving. George Andrew, as factor for Henry Greig, James Kempt, and other creditors of Gavin Kempt, answered the petition, defending the validity of Kempt’s vote.
Jean Coalston, Pursuer v. Archibald Stewart, Merchant in Queensferry, Defender	1770	Bankruptcy, Debt	The late George Stewart, merchant, who had filed for bankruptcy in London in 1749, owed money to Peter Coalston, the petitioner's brother, who had not participated in the bankruptcy arrangement. Later, Stewart started making money again and died, quite solvent, in 1758, with his bother Archibald as heir. Jean Coalston, as her brother's heir, sought to collect the debt. At the issue was the extraterritoriality of English law, in particular whether the laws of bankruptcy in England were applicable and valid in Scotland, as bankruptcy proceedings in Scotland were voluntary for creditors, whereas in England they were obligatory.
John C. Farquharson v. John Thomson (Trustee of Mason, Baird, and Co.)	1832	Bankruptcy, Debt, Sequestration, Creditor, Trustee, Fraud
John Finlay and Trustees v. Robert Finlay and Trustees	1772	Debt, Copartnership, Bankruptcy	John Finlay, pursuer, was the son of Robert Finlay, defender. John and Robert operated a shoe factory in Glasgow as a partnership. Robert owned two-thirds interest and John owned one-third. The partnership experienced financial difficulty and was placed in trusteeship. John's trustees sued Robert's trustees to see if Robert owed any money to John from the venture. Robert insisted that he did not owe any money and sought certain documents and books from the partnership.
Jowett, et al v. Wooley & Maidment	1797	Debt, Arrestment, Sequestration, Creditor, Bankruptcy, Aliment	Wooley and Maidment, as respondents, contested the debt-related arrest and flight charge brought by Jowett and his co-petitioners, claiming their detention was unlawful despite multiple warrants and asserting that they lacked fugitive status after forty days abroad. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Laing v. Watson and Mollison	1788	Debt, Arrestment, Sequestration, Creditor, Cautioner, Bankruptcy	Patrick Laing, tanner and burgess of Brechin, pursued Watson and Mollison, arguing that he had been wrongfully imprisoned and that the defenders acted with malice and without legal justification. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Lunn v. Creditors of Lunn	1802	Bankruptcy, Debt, Liferent	In May 1799, Walter Lunn, the Pursuer, was rendered bankrupt and subsequently sued for cessio bonorum. The Pursuer claimed that his insolvency was the result of innocent misfortune, while the Defender, his creditors, claimed that the Pursuer had engaged in fraud, thus disqualifying him from cessio bonorum. John Nixon, as Defender court-appointed trustee of Lunn's sequestered estate, opposed Lunn's claim to cessio bonorum after Nixon's review of Lunn's finances returned a much larger debt than Lunn had originally claimed. Nixon challenged the profits that Lunn claimed from a subject in Edinburgh liferented by his wife. Nixon argued that these rents were far less conseqential than Lunn claimed and that a competing claim on these rents by the family of Mrs. Lunn currently before the court would cause long delays in Walter Lunn's creditors receiving any of this money. Nixon also claimed that Lunn overstated the travel expenses he incurred while working as a traveling packman through the country of Roxburgshire.
M'Tier v. Lord Stonefield's Interlocutor	1789	Tack, Lease, Arrestment, Sequestration, Reparation, Bankruptcy	John M'Tier petitioned to alter Lord Stonefield's interlocutor, which held him liable for rebuilding the byre and kiln at Chang and for the value of moveable goods carried away. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Macdonald and Duff v. Doig	1792	Debt, Cessio Bonorum, Property, Trust, Bankruptcy, Arrestment	David Doig petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor concerning repayment of a debt. Janet Macdonald and John Duff defended against the petition, asserting that their antenuptial contract validly excluded Duff’s creditors from her property.
MacDougall's Creditors v. MacDougall	1802	Bankruptcy, Estate, Creditor	Mr. Allan Macdougall made advances to his son John to help him to get the position of lieutenant in the army. Two year after the disbursements, Mr. Macdougall became bankrupt and ceased the payments of his debts. Mr. Macdougall’s creditors brought an action against John Macdougall for repayment of the sum advances by his father. The Lord Ordinary found that the creditors were not entitled to claim the sums from John because their debts were separated from John estate.
MacHutcheon v. Welsh	1793	Bankruptcy, Debt, Arrestment, Creditor, Sequestration, Bill of Exchange	Hugh M'Hutcheon, trustee upon the sequestrated estate of John Tait, pursued Robert Welsh and Thomas Copland regarding payments received from Tait, disputing whether these transactions were void under the statute of 1696. Welsh and Copland argued that the remittances were made before sequestration and thus not void, while M'Hutcheon contended that the bills fell under the act as they were received after Tait's notour bankruptcy. After the Court pronounced an interlocutor against the defenders, they petitioned for its alteration, which M'Hutcheon opposed by asserting that Tait had been bankrupt and the bills were covered by the 1696 statute.
Macwhinnie v. Burton	1795	Debt, Creditor, Adjudication, Bankruptcy, Sequestration, Trustee	Andrew M'Whinnie, common agent in the ranking of the creditors of Alexander Hooks, petitioned the Court to alter the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor reducing his adjudication in totum on the ground of pluris petitio. Alexander Burton defended his interest against M'Whinnie's objections regarding pluris petitio and trustee status, submitting replies and information arguing that the reduction was justified by M'Whinnie's improper conduct and concealment of payments rather than by innocent mistake.
Marshall v. Taylor	1796	Bankruptcy, Trustee, Disposition, Creditor, Sequestration, Fraud	James Marshall, Writer to the Signet and trustee, challenged a preference claimed by Taylor and Smith over the proceeds of the lands of Dubhall and Auld's Acre from a bankrupt estate, asserting that the bankrupt held no valid title at the time of the bond. After the Court sustained the respondents' claim by interlocutor, Marshall petitioned to have that decision altered. The respondents opposed the petition as an irregular and belated reclaiming motion, arguing it was barred by acquiescence and prior litigation.