Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
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.
David Wight v. William Inglis 1798 Succession, Aliment, Disposition, Debt, Heritor, Teinds David Wight pursued William Inglis, Alexander Inglis, Elizabeth Inglis, Margaret Inglis, Marion Inglis, and James Hay to have them assoilzied from the burdens of the 1774 settlements. The defenders maintained that the provisions in those settlements were not payable to them as heirs of provision, and Wight subsequently petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor. The defenders answered, asserting a claim to 12,000 merks Scots legacy payable to their mothers' issue under the will of Andrew Simpson.
Davies, Jones, & Co. v. William Young 1786 Debt, Aliment, Oath, Interlocutor, Action, Bill of Exchange William Young petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Monboddo, claiming expenses, and Davies, Jones, & Co. answered the petition. The merchants defended against Young's claim for expenses and asserted that he had commissioned and received the six hats in dispute.
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.
Dickson v. Irving 1796 Aliment, Heritor, Interlocutor, Debt, Presbytery, Contract David Dickson, minister of the Gospel at St Mungo, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutors in a suspension process against William Bell Irving of Whitehill, a heritor of the parish, wherein Dickson acted as Charger and Irving as Suspenders. Irving answered the petition.
Donald McDonald v. His Creditors 1780 Debt, Bankruptcy, Aliment, Sequestration, Arrestment, Creditor Documents are available. Full description in progress.
Donald v. Murdoch 1771 Debt Charger Susan Murdoch sought to collect on a bond from suspenders Robert Donald, James Hepburn, and Walter Stirling. Stirling was also a nephew and factor to Murdoch. The suspenders refused to pay on the bond, alleging that Murdoch suffered from mental infirmity and old age ("weak both in body and in mind"). Murdoch denied this charge and maintained that the suspenders fabricated this allegation to delay or avoid payment on the bond. The suspenders denied that they were trying to take advantage of Murdoch. They maintained they were still obligated to pay on the bond at five percent interest. They also argued that Murdoch is not capable of taking care of her own affairs, and that other individuals in Murdoch's life were trying to get their hands on the money from the bond.
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 v. Robson's Creditors 1802 Debt, Meeting of creditors, Bankrupt After Mrs. Isobel Douglas (pursuer) knew about William Robson’s bankruptcy, she was involved in a competition with certain creditors of Robson, because she had a bond issued by William Robson and his two brothers to secure a debt. Robson’s creditors held a meeting without Ms. Douglas and executed a document (interlocutor) that did not include the debt of the pursuer. Ms. Douglas sought to change the interlocutor in order to include her debt and demanded the payment of her debt, principal, interest, and expenses.
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.
Duggan v. Wight 1795 Debt, Aliment, Lease, Trust, Tack, Trustee Francis Duggan pursued Alexander Wight regarding the lands of Kevockmill, contesting Lord Elkgrove's title and claiming that Wight held the property in trust for him, asserting a beneficial interest despite his absence from the conveyance. Wight denied serving as trustee and relied upon rent receipts to reject Duggan's claim, citing contradictions and lack of funds. After the court pronounced an interlocutor against him, Duggan reclaimed; subsequently, Wight petitioned with correspondence disputing ownership, and Duggan answered maintaining his trust claim.
Duguid v. Hall, et al 1788 Debt, Interlocutor, Credit, Oath, Caution, Contract James Duguid petitioned the Court to alter the Lord Ordinary’s interlocutor and suspend the letters simpliciter issued against him, challenging the enforcement of a Magistrates’ decree. John Hall, John Tenant, and William Sprott answered, asserting that the Magistrates’ decree had been properly enforced and the petitioner’s claims were groundless.
Dunbar v. Dunbars, et al 1798 Succession, Entail, Tailzie, Infeftment, Debt, Teinds Sir Benjamin Dunbar, pursuer, presented a reclaiming petition asking the Court to alter its interlocutor of 2 February 1799, which had assoilzied him from the conclusions of his action against the defenders, the Dunbars, et al. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
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.
Dundas, et al v. Cameron 1794 Succession, Debt, Tack, Rent, Teinds, Aliment Dundas and his co-pursuers petitioned the Court to remit to the Lord Justice Clerk the case of Donald Cameron of Lochiel against the defender Alan Cameron concerning a disputed disposition and sasine of lands. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
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.
Earl of Rednor v. Macarthur 1791 Succession, Disposition, Trust, Debt, Assignation, Adjudication Archibald Macarthur Stewart, defender in the action by the Earl of Rednor, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
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.
Edinburgh Oil Gas Light Company v. Sir William Baillie of Polkemmet, Baronet, and Others, Trustees of the deceased Da… 1835 Debt, Statute, Contract, Partnership, Interest, Succession The Edinburgh Oil Gas Light Company raised an action against Sir William Baillie of Polkemmet and others, as trustees of the deceased shareholder David Clyne, to enforce statutory calls for unpaid shares under the Edinburgh Oil Gas Company Act. The defenders denied liability, contending that the company had abandoned its oil-gas operations and improperly transferred its assets to a coal-gas concern, thereby invalidating the demands. The pursuers maintained their statutory right to recover expenses from the estate, while the defenders persisted in their challenges and ultimately reclaimed against the interlocutor, seeking to sustain their defences and be assoilzied from the action.
Edmonstone v. Tweedale 1772 Debt In 1766, Robert Tweedale, defender, owed money to James Edmonstone, pursuer. Tweedale could not repay Edmonstone at that time. As security for the eventual payment, Tweedale granted Edmonstone the right to "infeft," or take possession of, some old houses in Mid-Calder. Edmonstone agreed to delay seeking payment provided that Tweedale delivered possession of the houses to him. Despite this agreement, Edmonstone did not take possession of the houses and allowed Tweedale to continue living in them. Edmonstone grew tired of the delays in payment and found that the homes were in such a poor state of repair that their sale would not cover the cost of the debt. Edmonstone brought a process against Tweedale before the sheriff-depute of Edinburgh seeking to collect payment. He argued that the homes stood as security for future payment of the debt, and did not constitute the payment itself. Tweedale, however, countered that his infestment to Edmonstone satisfied the debt, an argument that the sheriff-depute accepted. In the Court of Session, the Lord Ordinary initially found for Edmonstone, but later reversed his own ruling. The documents here represent Edmonstone's attempts to convince the full court to rule in his favor.
Edmonstone, Fraser, and Ferrier v. Trustees of General Simon Fraser 1791 Debt, Succession, Trustee, Entail, Disposition, Trust Edmonstone, Fraser, and Ferrier pursued the Trustees of General Simon Fraser for payment of a Crown-gifted debt, insisting that the trustees were bound to pay the specified heirs rather than apply the funds to the entailed estate. The trustees maintained that the Crown’s gift of the debt to Archibald Fraser could not be enforced against the entailed estate of Lovat. They subsequently petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor in the cause.
Eliott v. Curries 1796 Debt, Succession, Tack, Lease, Aliment, Rent
Eliott v. Lord Justice Clerk's Interlocutor 1797 Trustees, Debt, Succession, Hypothec, Election contest, Action Sir William Eliott petitioned to reclaim an interlocutor of the Lord Justice Clerk denying his claim to £50:10s. paid to the writer Thomas Tod, arguing that the account was not prescribed and fell outside the scope of triennial prescription. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Elliot v. Romanis 1790 Bill of Exchange, Execution, Debt, Prescription, Creditor, Diligence Helen Elliot pursued Robert Romanis, a Lauder writer, for loss resulting from an officer’s conduct and the negligence of others. Romanis petitioned to alter the court’s interlocutor to deny liability, and subsequently raised an action against John GrahamsLie. GrahamsLie petitioned to be assoilzied from that action, and Romanis answered that his own liability arose from his own omission rather than GrahamsLie’s conduct, noting that the execution had been obtained by others.
Erskine v. Erskine 1795 Succession, Creditor, Adjudication, Debt, Disposition, Prescription The respondent Erskine argued that the marriage contract of 1738 constituted an onerous deed in favour of George Erskine that bound his heir to denude the lands. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
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.
Falconer v. Dreghorn's Interlocuters 1793 Debt, Aliment, Creditor, Arbitration, Reduction, Factor Loco Tutoris George Gordon Falconer petitioned the Court to alter the interlocutor of Lord Dreghorn upholding an arbitral decree against Mrs Katharine Thomson. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Findlay v. Graham 1772 Debt, Copartnership In 1739 James Findlay entered into a partnership with John Graham, James Stirling, Alexander Wotherspoon, and John Buchanan for slaughtering and selling cattle. Wotherspoon was appointed clerk, bookkeeper, and cashier of the partnership. Findlay was responsible for purchasing cattle and selling live cattle that were not fit for slaughter. Findlay was illiterate so he relied on Wotherspoon to keep proper accounts of the business. In February 1740, the partnership dissolved. The partners sought to settle all the accounts of the business. Findlay alleged that Wotherspoon was negligent in maintaining the company's accounts and argued that the partnership owed him money for the fifty cows he purchased in 1739 on partnership's behalf. The defenders claimed that Findlay was actually in debt to the company. They argued that Findlay was reimbursed for the fifty cows, or that he made this payment using company funds rather than his own funds.
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.
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.
Forbes, Hunter, and Company v. Edinburgh Life Assurance Company 1829 Insurance, Contract, Debt, Bill of Exchange, Representation, Aliment Sir William Forbes, James Hunter, and Company, bankers, raised an action against the Edinburgh Life Assurance Company to recover £3000 sterling payable under a policy of assurance. The defenders resisted payment, asserting that the policy was void due to misrepresentation and the non-statement of material facts at the time of effecting the insurance. The cause subsequently proceeded to a Bill of Exceptions for the defenders.
Fotheringham and Hume v. Ogilvie and Others 1795 Succession, Debt, Aliment, Liferent, Disposition, Creditor William Fotheringham and Hume pursued claims to the Balfour estate against Ogilvie and others, petitioning the Court in 1795 and again in 1797 to alter interlocutors respecting the succession. The respondents defended these interlocutors, maintaining that under a marriage contract the estate had vested in fee-simple in the second son, who predeceased his parents, thereby excluding the pursuers' claims as heirs. The litigation turned on whether the second son's fee-simple right to the Balfour estate took precedence over the pursuers' asserted rights in the Powrie succession.
Fullarton & Fullarton v. Dalrymple 1796 Succession, Deed, Possession, Prescription, Debt, Tack
Gardiner, et al v. Andrews 1788 Debt, Aliment, Tack, Lease, Rent, Fraud Robert Gardiner, with the concurrence of Ebenezer Marshall and George Arnot, pursued Robert Andrew to have declared void a lease granted by Gardiner to Andrew, alleging that Gardiner had acted under incapacity and that the defender had procured the tack by fraud. Andrew defended the action, maintaining that the lease had been granted freely and voluntarily without undue practice or fraudulent conduct. The litigation proceeded upon competing memorials addressing the validity of the lease and the questions of Gardiner's capacity and Andrew's alleged fraud.
Gardner v. Corporation of Goldsmiths in Edinburgh 1792 Tax, Debt, Corporation, Aliment, Interlocutor, Statute Alexander Gardner and David Downie, goldsmiths in Edinburgh, pursued the Corporation of Goldsmiths regarding the incorporation’s resolution to abolish the marking-money tax and its appropriation of marking money for private use. The Corporation defended its actions by citing the opulence of its funds and historical precedent for tax abrogation, while the pursuers contended that the assay office marking fees constituted wages rather than assessments and that the corporation bore no liability for such expense. The litigation proceeded through mutual petitions to alter interlocutors and answers exchanging these respective positions.
Gentle and Gentle v. Belch 1787 Debt, Creditor, Aliment, Bill of Exchange, Forgery, Reduction Robert Gentle and William Gentle, as pursuers, argued against defender Belch that thirteen bills of exchange bearing their names were forged and void. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
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.
George Forbes v. Ann Mackenzie and Richard Paterson 1775 Agent, Debt, Poor's Roll Defenders Ann Mackenzie and Richard Paterson retained pursuer George Forbes to help them recover a £. 200 bond granted to Mackenzie’s deceased father. Mackenzie and Paterson subsequently learned that they were eligible to receive court-appointed counsel through the “poor’s roll.” They successfully petitioned the Court of Session for the benefit of the poor’s roll and had the contract with Forbes voided. Forbes, who had already started working to recover the bond, sued Mackenzie and Patterson for the balance on their account. Mackenzie and Paterson disputed the amount that was owed and claimed that it should not be due until they had successfully recovered payment for the bond.
George Gordon and Alexander Stewart v. Alexander Lawrence 1832 Contract, Debt, Tack, Teinds, Aliment, Expenses George Gordon and Alexander Stewart pursued Alexander Lawrence, a slater in Keith, regarding disputes over slate supply, pricing, and carriage. Lawrence reclaimed against the interlocutor of Lord Corehouse, and the parties lodged a mutual appendix detailing their competing claims concerning the slate transactions.
George Haldane, and Others v. Charleton Palmer 1791 Trustee, Creditor, Adjudication, Debt, Sale, Succession George Haldane and other creditors pursued Charleton Palmer regarding the sale of the Grange estate and the ranking of claims to the proceeds. The creditors of W. Belchier argued that a summons of sale raised at the instance of an apparent heir does not operate as an adjudication for the behoof of the whole creditors, while Haldane sought to have his interest ranked pari passu with the other creditors.
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.
Gibson and Balfour v. Cheape 1799 Debt Cheape was co-cautioner on a bill for debt due by Baillie, Blinshall, Sadler in Edinburgh, to Gibson and Balfour. Gibson and Balfour attempted to receive payment from Cheape. Cheape countered that the debt was no longer valid, as the bill was more than seven years old.
Gibson v. Reid 1795 Debt, Succession, Aliment, Entail, Terce, Tailzie The respondent Gibson answered the petition of Christian Kerr Reid, contending that the petitioner’s condescendence underestimated the free rents of Hofelaw and failed to account for equitable relief for the widow. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Gloag v. Thomson and Others 1793 Debt, Usury, Bill of Exchange, Interest, Aliment, Creditor Gloag petitioned the Court of Session to alter the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor, which had assoilzied Thomson and the other defenders from an action for repayment of a £50 counter-bill. He subsequently petitioned again to alter the Court's subsequent interlocutor in the same cause. The representatives of James Thomson argued that the £50 bill was valid and that a prior bill for £107 10s had been paid.