Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
Kemloe v. Dun, Reid, and Company 1767 Debt In 1756, Gideon Kemloe, a merchant in Stonehaven (Stonehyve), cosigned as security on a load of cloth purchased by William Wise on credit from Dun and Company in Aberdeen. Wise could not sell the linen, and Kemloe became charged with making the payment to Dun and Company. Kemloe sought a suspension of this payment, claiming that since Dun and Company were already in debt to Wise, that debt should be settled first. Handwritten notation on case document says "refused."
Kempt v. Liddell 1771 Debt, Evidence In the early 1750s, pursuer James Kempt and defender David Liddel entered into a co-partnership for distilling spirits in Leith. In 1752 Kempt sued Liddel for outstanding debts arising from the partnership. One piece of evidence in the litigation was a cash-book mostly written by Liddel. The suit was dormant until revived in 1766. By this time the original cash-book written by Liddel was missing. In its place Kempt supplied a cash-book written by him (Kempt) or another person. Liddel maintained that this newer cash-book did not contain the original records of the co-partnership and therefore cannot be used against him in the litigation.
Ker v. Creditors of Sutherland 1772 Debt, Ranking of Creditors, Estate Alexander Sutherland of Kinminity granted a bond to the late Alexander Gordon of Garty. Gordon used this bond as collateral in dealings with other persons. Pursuer Elizabeth Ker's late husband, James Ker, was one of Gordon's creditors. Ker sought to collect on the bond, and he obtained for himself, and as assignee on behalf of certain other persons, a decree of adjudication against Alexander Gordon's son. Elizabeth Ker sought to collect on the bond on her late husband's behalf. Creditors of Sutherland, including George Dunbar, also sought to collect on the bond. At issue was whether Ker's claim could be treated pari passu (on equal footing) with the claims of Sutherland's creditors, such George Dunbar. Elizabeth Ker maintained that her husband's adjudication was timely, within a year and a day of another creditor's adjudication, so she should be ranked in her due order of preference. The creditors of Sutherland maintained that they had priority over Ker.
Laing v. Watson and Mollison 1788 Debt, Arrestment, Sequestration, Creditor, Cautioner, Bankruptcy Patrick Laing, tanner and burgess of Brechin, pursued Watson and Mollison, arguing that he had been wrongfully imprisoned and that the defenders acted with malice and without legal justification. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Laird v. Grindlay 1790 Tack, Creditor, Succession, Debt, Possession, Interlocutor John Laird and Company, merchants in Greenock, pursued Walter Grindlay, farmer at Seabegs, and John Buchanan, his mandatory, regarding a mill lease and Henderson’s employment, charging the defenders with unlawful possession and subtenancy. The cause proceeded to proof in June 1790, after which the pursuers petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor in February 1791, and the defenders answered in April 1791, contesting the allegations of unlawful possession.
Lamb, et al v. Duncan 1797 Debt, Creditor, Cessio Bonorum, Aliment, Diligence, Assignation James Lamb, John Robertson, and Alexander Orr petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Glenlee, and James Duncan answered the petition. The dispute concerned whether the Court would vary the prior order, with the petitioners seeking alteration and Duncan resisting the application.
Lamont v. Ewing 1792 Arrestment, Debt, Jurisdiction, Theft, Sequestration, Aliment Thomas Ewing, defender, petitioned the Court to overturn the interlocutor of the Lord Justice-Clerk, which found the water-bailie of Glasgow competent to hear the pursuer Lamont’s civil action for stolen goods. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Landale v. Carmichael, et al 1792 Debt, Adjudication, Interest, Teinds, Creditor, Security David Landale, surgeon in Leven, sought to reduce decrees of adjudication and expiry of the legal granted against his uncle Thomas Landale, arguing that the claims contained pluris petitio and had been extinguished by intromissions made within the legal period. After Edward McCormick petitioned to alter an interlocutor, Landale renewed his challenge in 1794 on grounds of pluris petitio, informality, and extinguishment, prompting the defenders to file duplies confined to factual allegations. Landale subsequently maintained that adjudication being an articulate diligence, a pluris petitio in one article did not invalidate the entire decree.
Lawson v. Macculloch 1797 Aliment, Debt, Interlocutor, Contract, Contract of separation, Creditor David Macculloch petitioned the Court to remit Lord Craig's interlocutor, which found him liable to his wife, Lawson, for expenses and denied her claim to a larger aliment. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Leggat v. Inner-House Interlocutor 1787 Debt, Sequestration, Adjudication, Rent, Power of Attorney, Tack David Leggat petitioned the Court of Session to alter its recent interlocutor, raising the question of whether the Court should modify its prior order. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Lunn v. Creditors of Lunn 1802 Bankruptcy, Debt, Liferent In May 1799, Walter Lunn, the Pursuer, was rendered bankrupt and subsequently sued for cessio bonorum. The Pursuer claimed that his insolvency was the result of innocent misfortune, while the Defender, his creditors, claimed that the Pursuer had engaged in fraud, thus disqualifying him from cessio bonorum. John Nixon, as Defender court-appointed trustee of Lunn's sequestered estate, opposed Lunn's claim to cessio bonorum after Nixon's review of Lunn's finances returned a much larger debt than Lunn had originally claimed. Nixon challenged the profits that Lunn claimed from a subject in Edinburgh liferented by his wife. Nixon argued that these rents were far less conseqential than Lunn claimed and that a competing claim on these rents by the family of Mrs. Lunn currently before the court would cause long delays in Walter Lunn's creditors receiving any of this money. Nixon also claimed that Lunn overstated the travel expenses he incurred while working as a traveling packman through the country of Roxburgshire.
M'Callum, et al v. Hunter, et al 1786 Debt, Fraud, Creditor, Insurance, Reduction, Sequestration The creditors of Kenneth M'Callum pursued Robert Hunter and other London underwriters to recover the sum insured on the ship *New York*. The underwriters alleged that the vessel had been wilfully destroyed by its owners to defraud them and resisted payment. The creditors maintained that the policy remained valid and that M'Callum bore no liability for the loss.
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.
M'Lehose and Others v. Parks 1775 Debt James Shiels wanted to sell certain parcels of his estate in Partick, which had been encumbered by his and his father’s creditors. The creditors agreed to ratify these sales; in exchange, James agreed to dispone to the creditors the remainder of his estate. After this deal was executed, one creditor broke with the others and attached the property that James had disponed. Nonetheless, the non-adjudicating creditors proceeded to sell the property at auction. William M’Lehose, the purchaser, granted bond for the price, joined by his sons William and James (the eventual defender). However, in recognition of the ongoing adjudication, M’Lehose stipulated that he would retain the sale price, bearing interest, until the encumbrance was removed. The dispute continued for some time, and the creditors alleged that James M’Lehose was delaying its resolution. They sought an order from the Lord Ordinary requiring the accrued interest to be capitalized so that it would bear interest going forward.
M. M'Kenzie v. C. Mackintosh 1828 Expenses, Interest, Interlocutor, Arrestment, Debt, Creditor M. M'Kenzie, as pursuer, raised an action against C. Mackintosh, as defender, regarding a fund in medio, and the Court upheld the oath references, granted a commission, dispensed with the minute-book, and awarded the fund to Campbell Mackintosh. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Macadam v. Creditors of Campbell and Company 1787 Creditor, Ranking of Creditors, Penalty, Adjudication, Debt, Infeftment John Macadam of Craigingillan petitioned the Court to alter Lord Alva's interlocutor, which had restricted his right to rank for penalty in his heritable bond against Campbell and Company. The heritable creditors of the firm answered, opposing his claim for penalty beyond the expenses of recovery.
Macdonald and Duff v. Doig 1792 Debt, Cessio Bonorum, Property, Trust, Bankruptcy, Arrestment David Doig petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor concerning repayment of a debt. Janet Macdonald and John Duff defended against the petition, asserting that their antenuptial contract validly excluded Duff’s creditors from her property.
Macdonald v. Macarthur 1791 Debt, Succession, Executor, Aliment, Next of Kin, Heritor D. Macdonald, as executor qua nearest of kin, argued that he held a clear right to recover from Captain Neil Macarthur the balance of a debt due to the estate. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
MacDonald v. MacGillivray 1793 Succession, Liferent, Trustee, Creditor, Interest, Debt Alexander Macdonald, trustee for the creditors of bankrupt Lieutenant Alexander Fraser, sued Farquhar Macgillivray to recover £400 due under a bond. Thomas, Alexander, and Ann Fraser, children of Lieutenant Fraser, argued that the fee of the lands of Aberchalader was vested in their mother rather than their father and thus not subject to the creditors' claim. Macgillivray maintained that the fee of the £400 was vested in Lieutenant Fraser rather than his wife or children.
MacEwan v Thompson 1793 Debt, Succession, Creditor, Trustee, Adjudication, Disposition
MacHutcheon v. Welsh 1793 Bankruptcy, Debt, Arrestment, Creditor, Sequestration, Bill of Exchange Hugh M'Hutcheon, trustee upon the sequestrated estate of John Tait, pursued Robert Welsh and Thomas Copland regarding payments received from Tait, disputing whether these transactions were void under the statute of 1696. Welsh and Copland argued that the remittances were made before sequestration and thus not void, while M'Hutcheon contended that the bills fell under the act as they were received after Tait's notour bankruptcy. After the Court pronounced an interlocutor against the defenders, they petitioned for its alteration, which M'Hutcheon opposed by asserting that Tait had been bankrupt and the bills were covered by the 1696 statute.
Mackenzie and Dunbar v. Mackenzie 1793 Succession, Property, Prescription, Thirlage, Debt, Tack Sir Hector Mackenzie defended against a thirlage petition by Mackenzie and Dunbar regarding the Logierioch lands, arguing that his obligations were limited by custom rather than feudal tenure and that tenants had long paid no multure for grain. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Maclauchlan and Campbell v. Campbell and Macnicol 1794 Aliment, Debt, Succession, Prescription, Intromission, Factor Grace Campbell, co-heiress and creditor under her father's marriage-contract, and Maclauchlan pursued the representatives of the late Colin Campbell of Ballinaby for count and reckoning. The defenders petitioned to be assoilzied from the action, and Maclauchlan sought alteration of a recent interlocutor. The pursuers subsequently argued that a tutor who failed to make inventories was not entitled to plead decennial prescription.
Maclean v. Maclean 1771 Debt, Creditor Archibald Maclean had won a judgement against John Maclean for the payment of debts arising from the sale of some merchant goods and a cow. John claimed that he was liable for the merchant goods, but challenged the bill for the cow charges. He alleged that this debt was assigned to some other people by selling the cow.
Macqueen v. Fleming 1798 Arrestment, Debt, Interlocutor, Caution, Creditor, Sequestration Charles Macqueen, as pursuer, petitioned the Court to remit to the Magistrates of Dundee with instructions to liberate him from jail without further caution, alleging that his life was in extreme danger. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Macwhinnie v. Burton 1795 Debt, Creditor, Adjudication, Bankruptcy, Sequestration, Trustee Andrew M'Whinnie, common agent in the ranking of the creditors of Alexander Hooks, petitioned the Court to alter the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor reducing his adjudication in totum on the ground of pluris petitio. Alexander Burton defended his interest against M'Whinnie's objections regarding pluris petitio and trustee status, submitting replies and information arguing that the reduction was justified by M'Whinnie's improper conduct and concealment of payments rather than by innocent mistake.
Magistrates and Councellors of the Burgh of Dunfermline v. Wilson, et al 1786 Debt, Arrestment, Election contest, Creditor, Aliment, Diligence The Magistrates and Councellors of the Burgh of Dunfermline, as defenders, filed answers to the petition of Thomas Wardlaw and others, responding to claims of electoral corruption. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Magistrates and Town-Council of Glasgow v. Anderston Brewing Company 1785 Interest, Debt, Libel, Interlocutor, Succession, Arrestment The Magistrates and Town-Council of Glasgow pursued Murdoch, Warroch & Co., brewers at Anderston, for duties on ale and beer sold in the city, while the defenders claimed exemption on the ground that they operated outside the city boundaries and had previously agreed to pay only 10d per barrel rather than the 13d claimed. The magistrates petitioned to amend their libel to include interest on the duties, which the brewers opposed as improperly raised at so late a stage. Both parties subsequently lodged reclaiming petitions against the Court's interlocutors, the brewers maintaining their denial of liability for the full duty.
Magistrates and Town-Council of Paisley v. M'Dowal et al 1792 Trustees, Assignation, Burgh, Debt, Trustee, Creditor The Magistrates and Town-Council of Paisley petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor in their action as pursuers seeking indemnity for road repairs executed under the 1753 turnpike act. The defenders William M'Dowal, George Houston, Robert Fulton, Robert Corse, Boyd Porterfield, Boyd Alexander, Archibald Speirs, and the assignees to the tolls answered the petition, resisting the magistrates' request for alteration of the court's prior order.
Mair v. Harries, et al 1789 Succession, Aliment, Debt, Tack, Adjudication, Multiple-Poinding Betty Mair petitioned the Court against Lord Monboddo's interlocutors, asserting that under a mutual agreement with her deceased husband Peter Harries she held exclusive right to his effects and a bond. Daniel, William, and Isabel Harries, the deceased's next of kin, answered the petition, contesting the widow's claim to the estate.
Manderson v Dickson 1793 Debt, Arrestment, Creditor, Sequestration, Bill of Exchange, Assignation George Manderson reclaimed against Lord Abercromby's interlocutor in his action against Dickson for wrongful imprisonment and damages. The respondents denied liability, attributing the litigation to vexatious conduct by the Manderson brothers and contending that the calculations of damages were frivolous.
Marion Kilpatrick v. John Macalpine 1792 Intromission, Trustee, Debt, Executor, Factor, Succession
Martin and Ker v. Robertsons 1792 Debt, Prescription, Statute, Statute of limitations, Creditor, Aliment Martin and Ker pursued a debt claim against Robert Robertson, a minor, and his tutors, who defended by asserting that prescription barred the action under the 1579 statute, requiring the creditors to prove the debt and its unpaid status beyond three years. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
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.
Maxwell and McCrerick v. Murdoch 1788 Arrestment, Creditor, Trustee, Sequestration, Prescription, Debt John Maxwell and John M'Crerick petitioned the Court against Lord Ankerville’s interlocutors, craving alteration of the arrestment preference granted to John Murdoch and remission of their expenses. Murdoch answered, defending his right to the preference against the objections raised by the pursuers.
Maxwells v. Kirkpatrick 1793 Succession, Possession, Contract, Prescription, Debt, Teinds Heirs of Sir Robert Maxwell petitioned the court regarding title to Kirkcudbright Castle and its lands, challenging a 1793 interlocutor by claiming through Maclellane heirs and a 1664 contract with Sir David Dunbar and arguing that unfulfilled conditions invalidated Dunbar’s claims. William Kirkpatrick, trustee for Robert Maxwell, defended his title under a 1740 deed and 1762 trust. The heirs subsequently resisted Kirkpatrick’s eviction attempt by asserting rights through prescription and prior appraisings.
McFarlane v. Meadowbank's Interlocutor 1796 Debt, Creditor, Aliment, Bill of Exchange, Assignation, Oath The suspender McFarlane petitioned against an interlocutor of Lord Meadowbank, which had found the charger entitled to expenses and appointed an account thereof to be given in. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
McGowan v. Inner-House Interlocutor 1788 Bankruptcy, Debt, Arrestment, Sequestration, Creditor, Bill of Lading Pursuer William McGowan petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
McHarg v. Dunn 1771 Debt, Estate Pursuer Agnes McHarg sought to collect from defender William Dunn on a bill payable to her late husband, Alexander McCredie. Dunn challenged the authenticity of the bill, relevant dates, and the rate of interest. McHarg maintained the bill was authentic and properly dated from 1748. McHarg also cast doubt on Dunn's testimony and allegations.
McKenzie v. Buchanan and Company 1792 Arrestment, Debt, Contract, Aliment, Employment, Action Daniel M'Kenzie, a spinner, pursued James and Archibald Buchanans and Company, his masters, contending that they had unlawfully deducted from his wages without contractual authority. The Buchanans subsequently petitioned the Court to overturn an inner-house interlocutor that had been pronounced against them.
Messrs Aitchison, Brown, and Company v. Lord Monboddo's Interlocutor 1792 Bankruptcy, Debt, Intromission, Creditor, Proof, Fraud Messrs Aitchison, Brown, and Company petitioned the Court to alter Lord Monboddo's recent interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Miliken v. Interlocutor 1802 Co-deudor, Dissolution, Debt, Promissory note In 1790, the pursuer lent some money to Love, Davidson, and Co. The debt was secured with a promissory note, which the pursuer had intended to be effective. Around 1792, two of the four shareholders, Andrew Crawford and John Love Senior, decided to transfer their interest in the company. In return of the transfer, the other shareholders agreed to pay all the debts of the company by February 1795. However, Love, Davidson and Co. was dissolved in 1794 and the pursuer had not received his payment by that time. The pursuer brought an action to alter the interlocutor with regards to the company insolvency and debts with the purpose to hold liable the retired shareholders of the promissory note, since he lent his money trusting that his debt was secured by all the shareholders as co-obligants.
Miller v. Cathcart, et al 1798 Succession, Debt, Aliment, Creditor, Tack, Disposition
Miller v. Semple 1776 Bonds, Debt Under a marriage contract executed in 1724, the late John Semple promised his wife Ann Lindsay an annuity of 300 merks. Ann Lindsay's father James Lindsay provided that his estate was to go to his heirs, but it passed to John Semple due to various deaths in the family. In 1747, John Semple sold the estate to John Miller, pursuer. At issue is whether there were debts attached to the estate. Defender John Semple, nephew of the aforementioned John Semple, maintained there were no debts attached to the estate because the earlier Semple received the estate through his deceased son, not through his wife Ann Lindsay. Semple argued that the wife only had a life interest (liferent) in the estate. Pursuer John Miller argued that Semple received the estate by deed of his wife.
Miss Margaret Littlejohn, and Others v. James Hamilton 1832 Sequestration, Creditor, Trustee, Debt, Factor, Trust Miss Margaret Littlejohn and others pursued James Hamilton of Kames for sequestration of the rents of his estate and the appointment of a judicial factor. Hamilton answered, arguing that sequestration was unnecessary and incompetent in view of an existing trust arrangement. Heritable creditors subsequently petitioned for authority to let lands in Hamilton's personal possession or for sequestration of the whole estate, and Hamilton filed further answers responding to the application.
Mitchell v. Lord Alva's Interlocutor 1787 Contract, Debt, Damages, Action, Bargain, Interlocutor Pursuer Thomas Mitchell petitioned the Court of Session to alter its recent interlocutor in the dispute with Lord Alva. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Monro v. Sutherlands and Sutherland 1793 Debt, Creditor, Reduction, Rent, Aliment, Sequestration William Ross Monro pursued an action against the heirs of John Sutherland and Ann Ross regarding debts Monro had owed to his uncle. William Ross of Aldie submitted a memorial arguing that the Court should not revive the tenor of unproduced obligations without proof of a special casus amissionis. The respondents challenged a decree in the suit, maintaining that prescription and a prior settlement barred the claim.
Montgomery v. Fowlis 1794 Succession, Deed, Debt, Prescription, Disposition, Creditor Montgomery, as pursuer, asserted that his adjudging creditor titles to the lands of Warrix and others were valid and complete while those of the defenders Fowlis were void. The defenders countered that a deed of tailzie executed in 1729, though not formally delivered, had been homologated by Janet Simpson's acceptance of a debt from the estate and thus constituted a valid title. Robert Barclay subsequently petitioned the Court for permission to present further argument against the defenders' claims based on an adjudication of heir rights under a disposition dated 1722.
Mrs Anne Nielson, &c v. Austins 1766 Aliment, Debt This case involved a dispute over how much money a husband owed his wife's family in aliment so that the wife could live with her family and the marriage could remain secret. William Sloan (deceased) and Anne Nielson (the Pursuer) married in secret in 1752 when Nielson was only seventeen. At the time, Sloan was in divinity school and felt that the relationship would be perceived as inappropriate for a man of his upbringing and occupation. Once married, Sloan claimed that revealing his part in a secret or clandestine marriage would be equally fatal to his career. In 1754, he granted bond to Neilson's trustees, her brother and uncle, to pay an annual stipend to Nielson's family to cover her living expenses. During their marriage and until Sloan's death in 1765, Anne Nielson and William Sloan never lived together as husband and wife. Sloan lived and worked as a minister in Dunscore, while Nielson lived with her mother in Edinburgh. When the case came before the Court of Session in 1765, the Court ruled that Sloan, who had died in debt, could only have been expected to pay Anne Nielson what he could reasonably afford, and the Court reduced the yearly payment due to Anne Nielson from the amount claimed by her trustees. The Nielson family appealed this decision. Sloan's executors also argued that due to Nielson's silence about her marriage when Sloan was alive, Sloan's creditors had no knowledge of Sloan's financial obligations to his wife at the time they lent him money, and that her latent claims to aliment were now unjustly delaying repayment of debts due to Sloan's creditors.
Mrs. Crawford & Others v. Bennett 1823 Bankruptcy, Succession, Debt, Creditor, Trustee, Aliment Mrs. Margaret Crawford and others raised an action against William Bennett concerning funds held by him, petitioning the Court to ordain him to make up a scheme or cast of the funds in terms of the statute to enable them to consider their claims. Subsequently, the pursuers sought to have the cause remitted to multiplepoinding or to amend the record to permit a full hearing upon their claims.