Legal Subject: Creditor

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.
Alexander Bruce v. The Representatives of John Stein	1792	Succession, Debt, Creditor, Aliment, Tack, Cautioner	Alexander Bruce pursued the representatives of John Stein for a debt arising from a 1770 bond involving Robert Stein, with trustees and spouses' portions also forming part of the dispute. The defenders resisted the action, leading Bruce and his trustee Alexander Abercromby to argue that the defenders, as representatives of the deceased John Stein, remained liable for the bond obligation.
Alexander Pagan and James Hunter v. Alexander Wylie	1792	Debt, Creditor, Bill of Exchange, Suspension, Aliment, Fraud	Alexander Pagan and James Hunter, as suspenders, resisted Alexander Wylie’s claim upon a bill of exchange that had been altered from £8 to £84 after execution. Wylie, agent for the Paisley Union Bank, had discounted the bill for the higher amount and argued that the suspenders remained liable for the altered sum, while Pagan and Hunter maintained that such a material change precluded any charge against the original acceptor and indorser. The litigation centered on whether parties to a bill could be held responsible for a sum materially increased after the instrument had been signed.
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.
Archer v. Lord Eskgrove's Interlocutor	1793	Cautioner, Creditor, Reduction, Interlocutor, Succession, Bankruptcy
Attorney of Thomas Cullen & Co v. David Philp	1792	Debt, Creditor, Bill of Exchange, Contract, Employment, Pactum Illicitum	The attorney of Thomas Cullen and Company opposed David Philp, merchant in Boarhills, who as suspender pleaded that no action could lie upon bills alleged to have arisen from a smuggling transaction in which the pursuers were principals or accessories. The attorney replied that this plea of non-action for smuggled goods was unjust and unsupported by law or fact.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Burden alias Campbell v. Campbells and Robertson	1791	Succession, Aliment, Creditor, Legacy, Multiple-Poinding, Disposition	Mrs Elizabeth Burden, alias Campbell, pursued the Campbells and Robertson as heir of her predeceased son John Campbell, claiming entitlement to his share of the residue of Duncan Campbell’s estate under the will’s substitution clause. She subsequently advanced additional claims under both the will and intestacy law, citing precedent for representative succession. The dispute centered on whether a mother could represent her deceased son to recover his portion of the inheritance under these competing theories of succession.
Burt v. Lord Justice Clerk's Interlocutor	1789	Succession, Aliment, Debt, Creditor, Sequestration, Defamation	Robert Burt petitioned the Court of Session to alter an interlocutor that the Court had pronounced against the Lord Justice Clerk. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
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. Irvine	1794	Aliment, Marriage, Creditor, Succession, Debt, Interlocutor
Campbell v. Laidlaw	1796	Debt, Creditor, Bill of Exchange, Sequestration, Partnership, Interlocutor	Robert Campbell, as pursuer, petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor suspending his charge for a bill of exchange he had accepted without value in the action against Laidlaw, the defender. Robert Corbet thereafter informed the Court that the bill had been accepted for the accommodation of Archibald M'Ausland rather than Milligan and Co.
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.
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.
Children of Macneil v. Reps. of Campbell, et al	1793	Succession, Wadset, Aliment, Arrestment, Debt, Creditor
College of Glasgow v. Lindsay	1793	Succession, Disposition, Infeftment, Contract of marriage, Creditor, Aliment
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 Currie v. Geddes	1793	Debt, Creditor, Prescription, Bill of Exchange, Trustee, Trustees	The creditors of Currie, represented by their common agent in the sale and ranking of the Estate of Newlaw, petitioned the Court to alter Lord Swinton’s interlocutor. The respondents contested the creditors’ attempt to rank debts against Currie’s estate, citing partial payments and post-prescription markings as evidence of debt continuity.
Creditors of David Currie v. William Hannay	1791	Debt, Penalty, Damages, Creditor, Contract, Forfeiture	The creditors of David Currie pursued William Hannay regarding whether articles of roup imposed a binding obligation. Hannay petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor, and John Currie, as eldest son and apparent heir of David Currie, and Hugh Corrie, Writer to the Signet, answered, maintaining that the articles created no binding obligation.
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 Fergusson v. Swinton	1795	Creditor, Debt, Succession, Aliment, Feu duties, Property	Hugh Ferguson, David Steuart, and other creditors of Walter Ferguson pursued an action against Mrs Catharine Swinton, his spouse, to set aside her marital settlements as fraudulent preferences prejudicial to their claims against the insolvent estate. They challenged the postnuptial contract granting her an annuity and provisions as voidable for preference. Mrs Swinton, represented by Alexander Keith as her curator ad litem, defended the deed as fair, onerous, and legally valid, resisting reduction.
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 Jackson and Esten v. Kemble (Two Folders)	1793	Patent, Creditor, Sequestration, Interdict, Trust, Lease	The creditors of Jackson and Esten petitioned for possession of the Edinburgh Theatre in order to manage the property under a disputed patent held by Mrs Esten. Kemble, defending as lessee and trustee of the Theatre Royal, resisted the grant of an interdict against his possession, asserting his lawful title and the public interest and arguing that the Court ought first to investigate the validity of Mrs Esten's patent claim before removing him from the theatre.
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.
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.
Crichton v. Mackay	1788	Defamation, Aliment, Mala Fides, Creditor, Marriage, Succession	Alexander Crichton petitioned the Court to alter a recent interlocutor. Defender Mary Mackay answered, responding to allegations of infamy and misconduct that Crichton had made against her.
Crosby and Attorney v. Maidment	1798	Debt, Aliment, Creditor, Assignment, Usury, Interest
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.
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.
David and Henry Lillie v. Mrs. Lillie or Smith, and Others	1832	Succession, Debt, Creditor, Legacy, Disposition, Aliment	David and Henry Lillie pursued Mrs. Lillie or Smith and others to prove the tenor of a holograph letter written by Miss Margaret Seton that their sister Catherine Lillie had destroyed, asserting that the letter directed legacies to them. The defenders denied that the letter contained any such bequests in favor of the pursuers. The pursuers lodged a revised condescendence and note of pleas in law, the defenders answered, and the pursuers subsequently led proof regarding the contents of the destroyed letter.
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.
Dewar v. Howieson	1788	Aliment, Succession, Debt, Bill of Exchange, Assignation, Creditor	Mrs Nisbet and her husband petitioned the Court of Session to alter the Lord Justice-Clerk's interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Donald McDonald v. His Creditors	1780	Debt, Bankruptcy, Aliment, Sequestration, Arrestment, Creditor	Documents are available. Full description in progress.
Douglas v. Grierson	1793	Debt, Prescription, Oath, Interlocutor, Creditor, Aliment	William Douglas, factor for the Representatives of the Leith Soperie Company, pursued payment from Mrs. Hislop, the widow, for soap furnished in 1782. When the court sustained the defender’s plea of triennial prescription, Douglas petitioned to alter and remit the interlocutor, arguing that written commission and receipt from 1782 provided sufficient proof of debt to overcome the prescription bar, and sought reconsideration of the ruling. Mrs. Hislop subsequently reclaimed against the interlocutor sustaining the defense of prescription.
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.
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.
Dunn v. Johnston, et al	1796	Creditor, Adjudication, Interlocutor, Ranking of Creditors, Ranking and Sale, Diligence	Mr Johnston of Carnfalloch petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary that postponed his interest in the ranking, on the basis that the adjudication had been led after certification. The respondents answered, disputing the argument that an adjudication obtained after certification should be ranked with preference.
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.
Edie, Laird, and Others v. Lord Craig's Interlocutor	1794	Creditor, Ranking of Creditors, Disposition, Interlocutor, Sequestration, Teinds	Edie, Laird, and others challenged Lord Craig's interlocutor ranking creditors' claims on Kerse lands, contending that objections to Elizabeth Dickie, Janet Gray, and Elizabeth Weir were wrongly omitted and that representation was valid under the Act of Sederunt. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Elizabeth and Isobel Grays, Daughters of John Gray of Rogart, deceased v. John Wood, and Others, Creditors of said John Gray	1770	Creditor, Estate Settlement	Elizabeth and Isobel Gray, daughters of John Gray, inherited the lands of Rogart, which their mother Rachel Monro had received from her own father. After her marriage to John Gray, Monro transferred legal ownership of the lands to her husband, at which time he agreed to secure £200 in liferent for his spouse and their future children. No formal contract, however was ever executed to confirm this agreement. Nevertheless, Mr. Gray remained as manager or administrator for his daughters. Elizabeth and Isobel Gray sold the lands of Rogart. The Creditors of John Gray brought a multiple-poinding action against them in an attempt to claim a right to a portion of the proceeds in order to satisfy John Gray's debts. The Lords found that the lands did not belong to the Mr. Gray, thus Elizabeth and Isobel Gray could claim the whole value.