Set-off.
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: Compensation |
| Case | Date | Legal Subject | Abstract |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alexander-Charles Maitland, & Others v. Dame Helen Maitland Gibson, & Spouse | 1830 | Compensation, Security, Succession, Debt, Tailzie, Entail | Alexander-Charles Maitland and other heirs of entail pursued Dame Helen Maitland Gibson and her spouse regarding £7000 paid by a canal company for consent to route a canal through the entailed estate. The pursuers sought to have the sum paid into a bank for lawful investment under the 1827 Act, asserting it was compensation for permanent damage belonging to the entail, while the defenders answered that it represented merely the value of the land and payment for temporary inconvenience. The court found that the defenders must compensate the heirs for the permanent damage sustained by the estate from the canal deviation, with the compensation to be paid from the £7000 received for the consent. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| M'Ghie and Attorney v. Forbes and Hay | 1794 | Debt, Succession, Creditor, Prescription, Possession, Compensation | M'Ghie and Attorney pursued Forbes and Hay, maintaining that William M'Ghie and Jean Forbes had possessed the houses without title and that their intromissions could not be enforced against the defenders. The defenders answered that Mrs Jean Forbes, as assignee of her husband's debt, had no claim beyond her jointure, and that they as trustees were not liable for her intromissions. |
| Mary Muir v. Isobel Buchanan | 1769 | Debt, Estate, Compensation, Oath of Party, Intrinsic and Extrinsic | In connection with the marriage of James Taylor and Mary Muir, Mary’s brother James Muir agreed to pay a tocher, or dowry, of 2000 merks. The debt went unpaid for several years. However, shortly after James Muir’s death, Taylor sought payment from Muir’s widow, Isobel Buchanan, and her children. (James Taylor died during the litigation, and the case was taken up by Mary Muir acting as his executrix.) As defender, Buchanan claimed that the tocher debt was more than offset by various sums that James Muir had advanced to his sister and brother-in-law over the years. In considering the parties’ competing claims, the court addressed a number of questions about which debts could properly be used to offset each other and what evidence was competent to prove those debts. Case documents discuss various commercial pursuits by the parties, including Mary Muir. |
| Ralston v. Dreghorn's Interlocuters | 1793 | Debt, Creditor, Compensation, Bill of Exchange, Assignation, Interlocutor | Robert Ralston, as pursuer, petitioned the court against an interlocutor issued by Lord Dreghorn. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Robertson v. Robertson | 1782 | Compensation, Trust | The trustees for the creditors of David Sibbald held an auction to sell a portion of Sibbald’s effects. At the auction, John Carnegie purchased a stack of wheat and transferred it to the petitioner, Thomas Robertson. Carnegie and Robertson did not grant a bill to the trustees for the price of the wheat, and the trustees eventually raised an action before the sheriff for payment, damages, and expenses. Robertson raised a counter-proceeding, alleging that the trustees owed him payment for certain business matters. The parties engaged in extensive litigation, leading to an order by the Lord Ordinary stating that Robertson had engaged in “manifestly improper conduct” and finding him liable for expenses. Robertson challenged this order on two grounds. First, he argued that his legal actions were justified. Second, he argued that the trustees were not competent to pursue the action because they had already been denuded of their trust. The trustees disputed these claims. |
| The Trustees for the Creditors of William Bogle v. John Ballantyne | 1791 | Bankruptcy, Debt, Arrestment, Creditor, Compensation, Trustee | James Macgregor and others, as trustees for the creditors of William Bogle, late merchant in Glasgow, petitioned the Court to alter a recent interlocutor in their action against John Ballantyne, banker in Ayr, for repayment of trust stock. Ballantyne answered the petition, contesting the trustees' claim for repayment. |
| Walter Sloan-Laurie v. Alexander Spalding-Gordon | 1779 | Next of Kin, Confirmation, Compensation | This is one of several cases litigated by the heirs of Walter Laurie of Redcastle. Laurie of Redcastle was a creditor of Robert Gordon of Shirmers. After Laurie's death, his nephew, James Laurie, assumed ownership of his uncle's moveable effects, for which he obtained partial confirmation. Thirty-five years later, after the death of James Laurie, his nephew Walter Sloan-Laurie brought action against Alexander Spalding-Gordon, the representative of the deceased Robert Gordon, for payment of the aforementioned debt. The defender, Spalding-Gordon, argued that as he had been a creditor of the late James Laurie sufficient to compensate, this debt was extinguished. The pursuer argued that because James Laurie had never been fully confirmed as an heir, the credit remained in bonis (in the goods of) Walter Laurie of Redcastle. Lord Hailes ruled in favor of the defender. The pursuer then appealed to the full court, which decided in his favor. |
