|Murdoch and Miller v. Home and Scott
||Debt, Competition, Ranking of Creditors
||Andrew Wilson, writer in Bo'ness, died with debts owed to creditors. His eldest son James Wilson sought to pay off the debts by a judicial sale of a tenement in Bo'ness, owned by the father. The pursuers and defenders in this case were competing creditors. Pursuers Murdoch and Millar (alternatively spelled "Miller") claim rightful ownership of the tenement based on a heritable bond dating back to Andrew Wilson's purchase of the tenement. In 1725 Wilson granted a heritable bond to two merchants in Edinburgh, who then assigned their interests to Peter Murdoch and William Millar, the fathers of the pursuers. The defenders argued the adjudication to Messrs. Murdoch and Miller was null and void. The pursuers asserted an interest in the tenement based on a separate creditor proceeding ("decree cognitionis causa") brought against Andrew Wilson through his heir James. Thus, the pursuers claimed they should be ranked side by side with Defenders.
|Thomson v. Christie
||This case was about the effect of two deeds granted by the late James Christie. In the first deed, James granted all of his property to his daughter Jean, his son-in-law Robert Thomson, and their children. Immediately after the deed was granted, Robert Thomson obtained infeftment on the property. In the second deed, James granted a parcel of the property to his daughter Janet, her husband John Morice, and their children. When James died, Janet took possession of the parcel, and the Thomsons took possession of James’s remaining property. However, twelve years later, the Thomson children sued Janet and her children to enforce the first deed. They sought past-due rent, compensation for James’s household furniture, and Janet’s removal from the parcel. Janet argued that the first deed was not meant to take effect until James’s death, and that it reserved to James the power to grant the second deed.