Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
Gordon v. Traill 1832 Debt, Creditor, Interest, Trust, Lease, Interlocutor William Gordon and others, as pursuers, presented a reclaiming note against an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Mackenzie in their action against the defender Traill. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Gourlay v. Glen 1786 Debt, Arrestment, Creditor, Interlocutor, Promissory note, Sequestration David Gourlay of Kipdarroch, Deputy-Collector of Supply for the County of Stirling, pursued William Glen regarding competing claims to funds held by John Campbell. The dispute concerned priority between Gourlay’s revenue claim and Glen’s claim to a debt due from John Price. Gourlay initially petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor sustaining Campbell’s defence against Glen; Glen subsequently petitioned to reverse Lord Swinton’s interlocutor decerning against him, and Gourlay answered, maintaining his priority over the consigned funds.
Graham v. E of Hopetoun. 1796 Succession, Aliment, Debt, Teinds, Creditor, Rent Lady Christian Graham, Sir Richard Bempde Johnstone, and Charles Johnstone pursued James Hope Johnstone, Earl of Hopetoun, regarding whether expenditures made by the Earl as legal curator of the Marquis of Annandale's estate affected rights of succession to Scots funds. The pursuers argued that the curator's payments did not impair succession rights, while the Earl maintained he was entitled to credit for his administrative expenditures and petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor. The pursuers subsequently answered the petition, responding to the seventh article concerning management charges.
Graham v. Gillespie and Company 1794 Debt, Fraud, Creditor, Bill of Exchange, Suspension, Onerous Indorsation Archibald Graham, cashier to the Thistle Bank, pursued William Gillespie and Company for payment of bills of exchange that had been materially altered after acceptance. Graham contended that the defenders remained liable for the raised amounts, while Gillespie and Company maintained that the bills, originally accepted for £58 10s. and £50, had been fraudulently raised to £458 10s. and £450 by William Robb without their knowledge or authority. The case turned on whether acceptors are bound to pay increased sums when bills have been fraudulently altered without their consent.
Grant v. Thomson 1776 Debt, Arrestment Pursuer John Grant was a creditor of John Taylor, who became insolvent and unable to repay Grant. Grant obtained two letters of horning against Taylor for his failure to repay. Grant learned that defender George Thomson, an innkeeper in Leith, was a debtor of Taylor. Grant used arrestments to bring an action against Thomson for the sum he owed to Taylor. Thomson had granted two bills payable to Taylor for the sum owed, which were then indorsed by Taylor to defender Alexander Ogilvie as clerk of the Edinburgh rope-work company. (Taylor owed money to this company for the purchase of ropes and sails.) The defenders argued that sums due by bill were not subject to arrestment. Grant conceded that this was true in the case of a bona fide indorsee. Grant maintained, however, that the bills were subject to arrestment where transactions were used to shield a debtor's assets from creditors. The defenders responded that the transactions at issue were bona fide and arms-length transactions.
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.
Gray v. Methven's Interlocutor 1795 Aliment, Prescription, Creditor, Debt, Succession, Interlocutor William Chambers petitioned the Court to remit the sheriff's interlocutor that held him liable for the aliment and expenses of Jean Wightman's child. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Haig v. Lord Swinton's Interlocutor 1786 Debt, Creditor, Succession, Arrestment, Passive Title, Bill of Exchange James Haig petitioned against Lord Swinton's interlocutor, asserting that he had incurred no universal passive title as a vitious intromitter. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
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.
Hamilton v. Scott 1797 Jurisdiction, Aliment, Interlocutor, Arrestment, Debt, Libel The Reverend John Scott petitioned against an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Methven. Thomas Hamilton, Treasurer for the Poor of Avondale, answered the petition, asserting that the justices of the peace had jurisdiction and that the decree was regular.
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.
Hawkins and Bruce v. Hamilton 1789 Succession, Debt, Trust, Executor, Aliment, Reduction Hawkins and Bruce raised an action against Archibald Hamilton, writer in Hamilton, as executor, seeking to hold him liable for his intromissions with the testator's estate. The defender argued that he was not liable for intromissions made beyond his lawful authority under the will. After an Inner-House interlocutor found him liable for his intromissions with the pursuers' funds, he presented a reclaiming petition asking the Court to alter that finding.
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.
Helen Fergus or M'Leish, and Husband v. Isobel Fergus or Izat, and Husband 1830 Debt, Succession, Aliment, Trust, Disposition, Liferent Helen Fergus or M'Leish and her husband John M'Leish pursued Isobel Fergus or Izat and her husband John Izat for exhibition of debts and payment from the estate of James Fergus. The defenders counterclaimed that prior payments they had made for M'Leish's debts exceeded the £300 legacy and half of the moveable estate due to them, leaving a balance of £60 1 3 owed by the pursuers. The pursuers maintained the validity of an 1814 settlement and denied allegations of preferential treatment, while the defenders subsequently reclaimed against an interlocutor of the court.
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.
Hill v. Swinton 1796 Contract, Security, Deed, Breach of Contract, Debt, Copyright Peter Hill, bookseller in Edinburgh, sought to relinquish his interest in the copyright of a book he had contracted to publish with John Swinton, Advocate. Swinton maintained that Hill remained bound by the agreement to accept delivery of sixty copies annually until all four hundred and eighty-six remaining copies were delivered. The pleadings set forth the parties' competing positions on the enforceability of the publication contract and the disposition of the unsold stock.
Hog and Others v. Creditors of John Stewart &c 1792 Debt, Copartnership, Creditor, Bill of Exchange, Contract, Dissolution James Hog, Cashier of the Paisley Banking Company, and others petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Gardenston at the instance of the creditors of John Stewart and Company. The creditors answered that the bills in question had been drawn after the dissolution of the copartnership, thereby contesting the grounds for the petition.
Home, et al v. Macknight 1797 Debt, Arrestment, Creditor, Jurisdiction, Bill of Exchange, Fraud The Common Agent in the Locality of Roxburgh filed answers on behalf of Macknight, defender, responding to objections by James Home of Carlfide and other pursuers to interlocutors concerning teind valuation and victual allocation. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
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.
Hunt v. Wilson and Robb 1786 Arrestment, Diligence, Sist, Sequestration, Debt, Lis Alibi Pendens John Wilson and James Robb, as present Provost and Jailor, argued that they were not liable to William Love because a lis pendens barred diligence from the pursuer Hunt’s bill-chamber appearance. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Hunter v. Monboddo's Interlocutor 1794 Debt, Arrestment, Creditor, Bill of Exchange, Caution, Oath James Hunter petitioned the Court to alter the Sheriff's warrant for his incarceration issued on grounds of meditatio fugæ. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
In re Jean Alexander 1779 Debt, Ranking of Creditors Jean Alexander, petitioner, held a bond on behalf of a French niece of her father, William Alexander, deceased Lord Provost of Edinburgh. The obligants on the bond were her brothers Robert and William. However, the former was deceased and the latter was bankrupt, and she had failed to produce her interest in time for a process of ranking upon William's estate. She petitioned the Court to have it inserted after the fact.
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.
Jack and Others v. Murdoch, Fearns and Company 1795 Insurance, Bill of Exchange, Adjudication, Debt, Sequestration, Oath Digitization and description in progress.
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 Donaldson and James Pinkerton v. The Manchester Insurance Company 1831 Insurance, Debt, Insurance Claim, Bill of Exchange, Interest, Assignment James Donaldson and James Pinkerton raised an action against the Manchester Insurance Company to recover payment under a fire insurance policy for wheat destroyed in 1829, claiming £408 1s. 11d. plus interest and costs. The defenders denied the competence of the action and asserted that the claim was void and barred. The parties thereafter joined issue on whether the defenders were liable for the loss of wheat and whether the policy had been discharged.
James Duff and William Duff v. Laurence Sutherland 1793 Arrestment, Decreet-Arbitral, Debt, Assignation, Magistrate, Sequestration James Duff in Nethertown and William Duff in Hillockhead of Glass pursued Laurence Sutherland, bailie of Elgin, for obstructing the execution of a caption and withholding consigned money and papers. The complainers asked the court to remit the bailie’s conduct, while Sutherland defended his refusal to incarcerate the debtor and retain the funds, asserting that the complaint was incompetent and that his actions were proper given the complainers’ unlawful proceedings and acquiescence in their own error. He further answered claims of damages and wrongful seizure, maintaining that his conduct had been justified under the circumstances.
James Farquharson v. Alexander Keay 1799 Creditor, Debt, Infeftment, Adjudication, Feu, Succession James Farquharson pursued Alexander Keay regarding the lands of Wester Kinloch, asserting a pre-emption right under the feudal charter against the vassal’s sale to third parties. Farquharson sought to strike out or clog Keay’s claim as an onerous creditor proceeding in diligence against the estate of Thomas Mitchell, challenging the validity of the sale and prior decrees as res judicata. Keay defended his position as a bona fide onerous creditor entitled to proceed against the estate notwithstanding Farquharson’s pre-emption claim, while Farquharson petitioned the Court to remit its prior interlocutor on the binding effect of the charter’s irritant clause.
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.
James Lockhart v. John Cathcart 1832 Lease, Rent, Valuation, Possession, Adjudication, Debt James Lockhart, as pursuer, presented a reclaiming note asking the Court to alter its recent interlocutor in his action against John Cathcart, defender. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
James Russel v. James Fairie 1791 Debt, Prescription, Bill of Exchange, Interlocutor, Statute of limitations, Oath Documents uploaded. Full description in progress.
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.
Janet Kyle and Her Trustees v. William Allan, Adam White and Others 1816 Reduction, Trustee, Debt, Creditor, Succession, Aliment Janet Kyle (also called Jessie Kyle) and her Trustees brought a summons of reduction against Adam White and other defenders, seeking to set aside the contract of April 20, 1811. White lodged preliminary and substantive defences denying the validity of the reduction and asserting that he was a bona fide purchaser of the rights in question. The cause proceeded to an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Mackenzie, against which the pursuers reclaimed.
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 Adair v. Robina and Jean Adairs 1786 Succession, Exhibition Ad Deliberandum, Witness, Debt, Sasine, Bonds John Adair, merchant in Dublin, petitioned the Court to overturn Lord Swinton's interlocutor dismissing his action for exhibition ad deliberandum against Robina and Jean Adairs. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
John C. Farquharson v. John Thomson (Trustee of Mason, Baird, and Co.) 1832 Bankruptcy, Debt, Sequestration, Creditor, Trustee, Fraud
John Court, S.S.C., Common Agent v. Mrs Tierney 1832 Debt, Creditor, Interest, Arrestment, Consignation, Interlocutor John Court, S.S.C., Common Agent, pursued Mrs Tierney in a multiplepointing and exoneration proceeding concerning the estate of Lewis Cuthbert, Esq. The action arose from a process raised by Abram Wildey Robarts against Cuthbert's creditors and representatives, and subsequently the Earl of Galloway and J. A. S. M'Kenzie reclaimed against an interlocutor issued by Lord Fullerton, asking the Court to alter his decision.
John Earl of Rothes v. John Philp 1758 Debt, Succession, Entail, Infeftment, Tailzie, Creditor John Philp pursued John Earl of Rothes for 5000 merks and interest due under a bond dated 1716. The Earl defended on the ground that the estate was entailed by a 1684 deed and 1687 charter, rendering it immune from ancestral debts. The litigation turned on whether the 1685 Tailzie Act required judicial registration of pre-1685 entails to render them valid against creditors, with the Earl asserting that the entail was binding under common law and a 1662 Court of Session decision and that the Act did not apply retroactively.
John Finlay and Others v. John Newbigging and Others 1792 Debt, Aliment, Corporation, Reduction, Succession, Election contest John Finlay and other weavers petitioned the Court to overturn Lord Ankerville’s interlocutor, alleging that reformers within the Incorporation of Weavers in Lanark had illegally excluded them and misused funds in violation of the by-laws. John Newbigging and other members answered, maintaining that the respondents possessed no right to expel members for non-payment of assessments.
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.
John Gordon of Auchanachy v. Grizel Ogilvie 1757 Succession, Debt, Disposition, Infeftment, Prescription, Reduction John Gordon of Auchanachy, pursuer, and his trustee Alexander Gordon of Whiteley, Advocate, challenged the title of Grizel, Katharine, and Anne Ogilvie, daughters of John Ogilvy, to the Estate of Balbegno, arguing that the defenders' claim founded on a 1713 obligation of their mother Elizabeth Middleton was voidable on grounds of prescription and res judicata. The defenders maintained that the pursuer was barred from reducing their infeftment by ratified obligations binding his parents and by forty years' prescription, while the pursuer contended that he was not subject to his father's debts and that a prior decreet-absolvitor against Lady Auchanachy did not bar the present action. The parties exchanged memorials and answers disputing the validity of a 1709 estate settlement, the production of evidence, and allegations of fraud and misconduct in the original disposition.
John Minto and John Gavin v. John Kirkpatrick 1831 Succession, Debt, Creditor, Aliment, Liferent, Tack John Minto and John Gavin pursued John Kirkpatrick for a decree compelling exhibition of title-deeds and accounts relating to Margaret Sime's inheritance and annuity rights. They reclaimed against an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Medwyn.
John Skeill v. Humphry-Bland Gardiner 1775 Debt, Estate John Skeill, pursuer, provided horses for Robert Gardiner, father of the defendant and Commissary for British forces in Scotland. Skeill contends that he was paid for the use of his horses in the summer of 1759 but not for the period of November 1759 to March 1760. Gardiner claims that he was very young when these transactions took place, but that there is ample evidence that the troops had been removed from their encampment by early November 1759, so that his father would no longer have needed Skeill's services. Case documents include depositions and accounts.
John Ure, and other Heritors within the Royalty of the Burgh of Forfar v. Patrick Carnegy, and Others, Heritors of the Landward District of the Parish of Forfar 1792 Decreet-Arbitral, Heritor, Burgh, Teinds, Contract, Debt John Ure and the other heritors within the royalty of the burgh of Forfar pursued Patrick Carnegy and the other heritors of the landward district of the parish regarding the method of dividing the church. The pursuers argued that the church ought to be divided in proportion to population, while the defenders maintained that it should be divided according to valued rent as settled by Lord Coalston's decree. Both parties presented informations to the Court setting forth these competing claims.
John Watson v. Sarah Marshall and Others 1781 Creditor, Adjudication, Debt, Succession, Inhibition, Prescription John Watson, trustee for the creditors of David Ireland, petitioned the Court to alter a recent interlocutor, asserting that his claim founded upon a 1733 inhibition and Jean Crookshanks’s overt intromission gave him priority over competing creditors. The creditors of James Alcorn, including Sarah Marshall, opposed the petition, disputing Watson’s title and ranking while raising objections of prescription, usury, and the validity of a bond of corroboration obtained under interdiction. Watson subsequently defended David Ireland’s adjudication against Marshall’s claim, maintaining his superior creditor rank and the retroactive validity of Jean Cruickshanks’s ruling.
John Wilson and Others v. James Scott and Others 1792 Debt, Aliment, Corporation, Charter, Succession, Interlocutor John Wilson and others pursued James Scott, late Deacon, and other members of the Incorporation of Hammermen in Glasgow, contending that the defenders had unlawfully applied £20 from the corporation's funds to burgh reform. The defenders maintained that the Incorporation possessed legal power to apply its funds for public reform purposes. After the pursuers noted the financial history and assessment of the corporation, the defenders petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor.
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.