Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
Mrs. Euphemia Innes v. Duke of Gordon 1831 Succession, Lease, Rent, Debt, Entail, Res judicata Mrs. Euphemia Innes, relict and executrix of John Innes, presented a reclaiming note against George, Duke of Gordon, asking the Court to alter the interlocutor sustaining the Duke's defences. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Mrs. Jane Lowrey or Maxwell v. Colin Dunlop Donald and Dr King 1830 Trustee, Marriage, Succession, Debt, Aliment, Trust Mrs. Jane Lowrey or Maxwell sued Colin Dunlop Donald and Dr Benjamin Watts King, as trustees and executors of the late John Maxwell Esq., for a declarator that she was his lawful wife and relict, concluding for aliment. The defenders denied the marriage and asserted that the aliment conclusions were incompetent, while Mrs. Lowrey also objected to a petition seeking a curator bonis for her children, insisting upon their legitimacy. She subsequently reclaimed against an interlocutor, asking the Court to alter it and repel the defences of Donald and King.
Muirhead, Hay, and Company v. Dunmore 1792 Debt, Creditor, Sequestration, Interest, Interlocutor, Prescription Muirhead, Hay, and Company, merchants in Glasgow, pursued Robert Dunmore for payment of debts contracted in Virginia, contending that Dunmore was liable as a partner of Logan, Gilmour, and Company. Dunmore defended the action on the grounds that the debts were prescribed, lacked proper documentary support, and were improperly pursued following forfeiture in Virginia.
Murdoch and Miller v. Home and Scott 1718 Debt, Competition, Ranking of Creditors Andrew Wilson, writer in Bo'ness, died with debts owed to creditors. His eldest son James Wilson sought to pay off the debts by a judicial sale of a tenement in Bo'ness, owned by the father. The pursuers and defenders in this case were competing creditors. Pursuers Murdoch and Millar (alternatively spelled "Miller") claim rightful ownership of the tenement based on a heritable bond dating back to Andrew Wilson's purchase of the tenement. In 1725 Wilson granted a heritable bond to two merchants in Edinburgh, who then assigned their interests to Peter Murdoch and William Millar, the fathers of the pursuers. The defenders argued the adjudication to Messrs. Murdoch and Miller was null and void. The pursuers asserted an interest in the tenement based on a separate creditor proceeding ("decree cognitionis causa") brought against Andrew Wilson through his heir James. Thus, the pursuers claimed they should be ranked side by side with Defenders.
Mures, et al v. Hannay, et al. 1793 Agent, Debt, Sale, Interlocutor, Creditor, Statute Sir Samuel Hannay and his co-defenders petitioned the Court to alter the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor, requesting either that the Court fix a time and place for creditors to elect a common agent for the sale and ranking or that it appoint Archibald Swinton or another person to that office. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Murray and Creditors vs. Blair and Creditors 1793 Bankruptcy, Ranking of Creditors, Debt, Creditor, Sequestration, Adjudication
Murray v. McNaught 1798 Arrestment, Debt James Murray brought an action against John McNaught, the former minister for the parish of Girthon, accusing him of fiscal irresponsibility. Murray, who supplied McNaught's stipend, accused the minister of squandering his income and racking up debts. Murray sought to recover funds from McNaught.
Myles v. Lyall 1797 Reduction, Debt, Bankruptcy, Cautioner, Interlocutor, Creditor Alexander Lyall, as cautioner, sought relief from liability against Myles under a bond limited to the Admiral’s decree, contending that the obligation did not extend to a later Court of Session reduction. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Nairne v. Cranstoun 1795 Debt, Bankruptcy, Sequestration, Creditor, Bill of Exchange, Promissory note Alexander Nairne, trustee for the sequestrated estate of Peter and Francis Forrester, opposed Thomas Cranstoun’s petition to alter Lord Methven’s interlocutor and rank A. Laidlaw’s undiscounted bills in the estate. Nairne contended that Laidlaw’s failure to discount the bills forfeited double-ranking rights, while Cranstoun sought the alteration to allow the ranking. The respondent argued that the transaction between Forrester and Laidlaw constituted an equal exchange of obligations and that the interlocutor should not be altered.
Ogilvie v. Scott 1792 Teinds, Patronage, Charter, Heritor, Debt, Parish
Oliphant and Husband v. Oliphant 1792 Succession, Aliment, Adjudication, Sequestration, Debt, Creditor Oliphant and Husband petitioned to void a bond granting full rent to two sisters, arguing that it unfairly excluded younger children and exceeded the tailzie’s authority. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Orrs v . Batchin and Birkmyre 1793 Bill of Exchange, Bankruptcy, Promissory note, Creditor, Arrestment, Debt William Orr pursued an action against the Paisley merchants Batchin and Birkmyre regarding the negotiation of a promissory note and petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor. The respondents opposed the motion, arguing that the pursuer's clerk had negligently delayed transmitting the dishonoured note, while maintaining that they themselves had exercised due diligence in recovering payment.
Petition of Robert Gibbon 1787 Debt, Assignation, Creditor, Ranking of Creditors, Bill of Exchange, Sequestration Robert Gibbon, merchant in Aberdeen, petitioned the Court of Session to alter its recent interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Petrie v. Lord Ankerville's Interlocutor 1789 Debt, Prescription, Bill of Exchange, Creditor, Rent, Security Pursuer Joseph Petrie petitioned the Court of Session to alter its recent interlocutor in his dispute with defender Lord Ankerville. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Philips v. Buchanan 1797 Debt, Oath, Interlocutor, Partnership, Aliment, Suspension Pursuer John Phillips petitioned the Court of Session to alter its recent interlocutor reversing a ruling by Lord Armadale in his case against defender Buchanan. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Preston v. Wellwood 1791 Trust, Entail, Debt, Aliment, Succession, Lease Sir Charles Preston and the other trustees appointed by the deceased Robert Wellwood of Garvock sought suspension and interdict against Robert Wellwood, now of Garvock, to prevent him from cutting timber on the entailed estate. Wellwood answered, claiming he was entitled to cut timber on the estate notwithstanding the deeds of entail and trust executed by his father. The trustees maintained that they possessed the exclusive right to prevent the cutting of growing timber in order to preserve the value of the trust estate.
Pringle v. Hamilton 1793 Prescription, Bill of Exchange, Debt, Oath, Action, Assignation Pringle pursued Hamilton for payment of a bill of exchange drawn by David Cathcart in 1762, while Hamilton defended on the grounds that the instrument had not been duly negotiated and that the debt was prescribed. Pringle argued that Hamilton remained liable notwithstanding the alleged defect in negotiation and that the defense of prescription was inapplicable, but Cathcart answered that the debt had been discharged by payment made by his father. Hamilton subsequently petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor.
Purdie v. Lord Swinton's Interlocutor 1788 Debt, Aliment, Succession, Adjudication, Interest, Rents Thomas Purdie petitioned the Court to alter Lord Swinton's recent interlocutor entered against him and to find that no expenses were due. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Purdie v. Tod 1789 Succession, Debt, Tack, Lease, Rent, Disposition Thomas Purdie, clerk to the Charity Work-house of Edinburgh, pursued claims of heritable interest in a tan-work against Thomas Tod, merchant in Edinburgh, and Tod answered the petition. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Quirk v. Buchanan 1793 Debt, Bill of Exchange, Creditor, Agent, Interest, Arrestment Pursuer Matthew Quirk petitioned the Court to remit the interlocutor of Lord Dreghorn refusing a bill of suspension against defender Buchanan. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Ralston v. Dreghorn's Interlocuters 1793 Debt, Creditor, Compensation, Bill of Exchange, Assignation, Interlocutor Robert Ralston, as pursuer, petitioned the court against an interlocutor issued by Lord Dreghorn. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Ramsay v. Lister 1787 Arrestment, Creditor, Diligence, Sequestration, Debt, Assignation James Lister, Tackman of Pitlessie Mill, as defender, answered the petition of John Ramsay, Brewer in Letham, pursuer, responding to claims of dereliction and mora in arrestment diligence. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Rankine and Son v. Belch 1790 Creditor, Debt, Bill of Exchange, Forgery, Reduction, Promissory note Defender Peter Belch argued that the indorsement by Rankine and Son was genuine and that he held no material interest in the matter, as he would recover value from David Mitchell, who had received full value. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Rebecca Hog v. Thomas Hog 1791 Succession, Jurisdiction, Legitim., Debt, Aliment, Collation Rebecca Hog pursued Thomas Hog of Newliston regarding an estate that included moveables situated in England, and Thomas answered that the Court might apply English law to those assets. After the Court pronounced an interlocutor, Thomas reclaimed and presented an additional petition, which Mrs Lashley and her husband answered by alleging that he had failed to comply with the order to furnish full states of the estate.
Reid v. Lord Craig's Interlocutor 1794 Advocation, Test, Debt, Action, Interlocutor, Sheriff James Reid, as pursuer, petitioned the Court of Session to alter an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Craig. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Remington, Crawford, and Company, and Others v. Mrs. and Miss Bruce and Sir Michael Bruce and Others 1824 Debt, Creditor, Succession, Reduction, Aliment, Expenses Remington, Crawford, and Company and other creditors pursued Mrs. Bruce, Miss Bruce, and Sir Michael Bruce to reduce an 1819 land disposition favoring the heirs, alleging it created unlawful preferences prejudicial to onerous debts. The defenders initially asserted that gratuitous provisions must be postponed to onerous creditors while seeking assoilziment, later maintaining that their securities derived from the free residue of the estate and were irreducible. The pursuers sought reduction of the mortis causa provisions while conceding the debtor's solvency, and argued that as onerous creditors they were entitled to preference over the gratuitous legatees.
Representatives of Lowthian v. Representatives of Aglianby 1801 Terce, Debt, Burgage Case involves the question of whether the defendant must apply the rents from Staffold estate in the English county of Cumberland to extinguish a debt due from George Ross to Richard Lowthian, deceased husband to the defender and uncle to Ross.
Richardson and Tait v. Thomson 1775 Debt, Assignment David Thomson of Ingliston, defender, granted a bond to James Thomson, who conveyed shares of the bond to many different assignees. Several of these assignees made further assignments, and the pursuers, John Richardson and John Tait, came to possess a four-sixths share of the bond. Richardson and Tait sued David Thomson for payment. In the ensuing process, Thomson alleged that Tait and Richardson were merely trustees for certain assignees whom he had already paid. In response, Richardson and Tait claimed to be Thomson’s rightful creditors, having exchanged ready money for shares that the earlier assignees were unable to collect. Richardson and Tait also argued that David Thomson had missed a deadline for continuing to contest the case.
Riddell v. King 1796 Debt, Creditor, Interlocutor, Decreet-Arbitral, Trustee, Representation Sir James Riddell of Ardnamurchan and his co-pursuers petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor that had found them personally liable for a debt due by the deceased Mrs Paterson, explaining that they had not yet recovered any executry funds. The deceased’s executors subsequently petitioned for permission to delay further the recovery of those funds, despite admitting liability and acknowledging that ample estate assets remained available.
Ritchie v. Lauder 1795 Debt, Bankruptcy, Creditor, Aliment, Arrestment, Sequestration The pursuer Ritchie, in the interest of the creditors of Peter Logan, sought to set aside a preference granted to Colin Lauder, surgeon of the Sutherland Regiment of Fencibles, as fraudulent. Lauder petitioned the Court to remit the interlocutor of which he complained and to supersede extract until the following January. The creditors subsequently informed the Court that the preference was fraudulent and ought to be reduced.
Ritchie v. Patersons 1794 Succession, Aliment, Interlocutor, Liferent, Debt, Jus Relictæ Agnes Ritchie pursued the Patersons for one-fifth of her grandfather John Paterson’s moveable estate under his settlement, seeking to claim the share notwithstanding her mother’s predecease. The defenders maintained that she was entitled only to one-fifth of the dead’s part of the estate rather than one-fifth of the whole personal estate.
Robb v. Trustee 1793 Succession, Aliment, Creditor, Trustee, Debt, Sequestration Mrs. Agnes Robb sought aliment from the sequestrated estate of her husband William Robb, pleading that she had brought a pre-marital fortune to the marriage, had been deserted by her insolvent husband, and had suffered improper sale of her property. Walter Ewing MacLae, trustee of the estate, answered her petition, whereupon Mrs. Robb replied correcting factual errors and insisting upon her right to retain the annual produce of her estate for her aliment. She subsequently petitioned the Court to alter a recent interlocutor.
Robert Callander v. John Milligan 1847 Arrestment, Debt, Defamation, Bankruptcy, Sale, Damages Robert Callander pursued John Milligan for damages for defamation and unlawful apprehension. Callander alleged that Milligan had instigated false accusations of cattle theft, causing Callander's detention by police at Carlisle and resulting in lost sales and reputational injury. Milligan denied liability, contending that Callander had stolen the cattle rather than purchased them through an assignee as claimed, while Callander maintained he had paid for the beasts before being wrongfully detained.
Robertson and Husband v. Holland 1775 Debt Martha Robertson, petitioner, sought payment on a bill from William Holland, respondent; at the same time, Archibald Ochiltree sought payment from Holland on a promissory note that was payable to Robertson but had been indorsed to Ochiltree. Robertson and Holland offered differing accounts of the facts surrounding the bill and promissory note. According to Robertson, Holland voluntarily granted the instruments on behalf of a friend, Charles Bolingbroke, who fled the country without paying his debts to Robertson. However, according to Holland, Robertson solicited the instruments so that she could show them to her creditors, without any intention that they would actually be paid. In Holland’s telling, a receipt signed by Robertson was intended to secure him against any demand for payment. In addition to disputing the facts, Robertson presented legal arguments against the receipt’s validity, which related to her status as a married woman. Holland argued that the bills were invalid because Robertson had paid no value for them. A number of depositions are included in the case documents.
Rose v. Lord Cullen's Interlocutor 1801 Debt, Bargain, Aliment, Tack, Contract, Factor The Right Hon. James Earl of Fife answered the petition of William Rose, late his factor, responding to allegations of breach of trust and confidential disclosure. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Ross v. Forbes, Hunter, and Company 1792 Agent, Interlocutor, Insurance, Creditor, Debt, Statute Donald Ross petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor in an action against Forbes, Hunter, and Company regarding liability for damages. The defenders answered petitions by Catharine Ross and Alexander Mackenzie by arguing that they were not liable because the broker and underwriters were directly responsible. The litigation thus turned on whether the defenders could avoid liability by attributing responsibility to these third parties.
Ross v. Trustees of Hugh Ross 1792 Debt, Succession, Aliment, Creditor, Adjudication, Factor Loco Tutoris John Hunter, Archibald Swinton, and David Limond, as trustees for Hugh Ross of Kerse and his creditors, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor in the action brought by Ross against them. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Ross, et al. v. Aglianby 1796 Debt, Terce, Jus Relictæ, Deed, Succession, Interlocutor Ross and others pursued Aglianby in a dispute over estate distribution involving competing claims to terce and conventional provisions. Mrs Lowthian challenged an interlocutor voiding her conventional provisions and sought to retain funds and claim terce from her late husband's estate, prompting the respondents to answer regarding the exclusion of terce and the effect of obligations to George Mackenzie's trustees. Mrs Sarah Aglianby subsequently petitioned the court to alter its recent interlocutor respecting her own claim to terce from her husband's Scottish lands.
Rossel, et al v. Fraser 1787 Debt, Creditor, Promissory note, Bill of Exchange, Prescription, Succession Patrick Fraser, merchant in Edinburgh, petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Eskgrove regarding his claim of debt. James Russel, William Cooper, and others, upholsterers in Edinburgh and trustees for Isobel Boog, answered the petition, contesting Fraser’s entitlement to the alteration. The dispute centered on whether the court should modify the prior interlocutor in favor of Fraser’s debt claim against the trust estate.
Rutherford v. Caverhill, et al 1787 Succession, Debt, Aliment, Deed, Mala Fides, Creditor Mrs Helen Rutherford sought to reduce deeds of settlement executed by the deceased Archibald Jerdon in favour of Jerdon Caverhill, contending that the instruments were invalid owing to his dotage and undue influence. Archibald Jerdon of Bonjedward and his Tutors, with others, defended the deeds and argued that the Court should not reduce them.
Rutherford v. Rutherford and Potts 1788 Arrestment, Sequestration, Hypothec, Debt, Rent, Cautioner Jane Rutherford, widow of Robert Robson, petitioned the Court to alter Lord Hailes’s interlocutor regarding the Sheriff’s refusal to grant advocation. The respondents, Rutherford and Potts, defended that refusal and asserted their preference over rent arrears and crop proceeds from 1783 roup sales.
Scott v. Steuart 1795 Interlocutor, Servitude, Property, Debt, Action, Arrestment William Scott petitioned the Court to overturn an interlocutor of the Lord Justice Clerk regarding David Steuart. Steuart answered the procurator-fiscal's argument that his necessary-house constituted a public nuisance. Scott subsequently petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor against Steuart concerning the latter's obligation to clean a ditch adjoining a public road.
Seton v. Creditors of Seton 1793 Succession, Debt, Creditor, Bankruptcy, Trust, Aliment Hugh Seton of Touch disputed his creditors' claims to certain assets, arguing that funds held at Boulogne were partnership property of Charles and Hugh Smith and Company rather than his individual estate, and that he retained the fee of an £8000 sterling trust as father notwithstanding the trustees' conveyance to his son. The creditors contended that company creditors who had drawn dividends in France must communicate those amounts before ranking against his Scottish funds.
Shepherd v. Lord Swinton's Interlocutor 1787 Arrestment, Interlocutor, Cautioner, Debt, Sequestration, Citation James Shepherd petitioned the Court to remit the Lord Ordinary's interlocutors pronounced against him. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Shoolbred v. Lindsay 1792 Debt, Creditor, Aliment, Assignment, Assignation, Arrestment John Shoolbred, trustee for the creditors of Captain Charles Steuart Lindsay, sought to compel Lindsay to assign £40 per annum from his military half-pay pursuant to a court order. Lindsay resisted, maintaining that his half-pay was not assignable to creditors and that Shoolbred’s claim thereto was ineffectual. The case turned on whether half-pay could be made liable to the claims of creditors.
Simpson v. Malcolm 1793 Debt, Interlocutor, Aliment, Creditor, Partnership, Citation Captain William Simpson of Brunton pursued John Malcolm, butcher in Dunnikier, in a dispute involving allegations of partnership and challenges to interlocutory orders. Simpson petitioned to overturn Lord Dreghorn's interlocutor suspending the letters simpliciter, prompting Malcolm to answer and deny the partnership while citing procedural irregularities. Malcolm subsequently petitioned to alter the Inner-House interlocutor, to which Simpson replied by raising claims of prescription and improper citation.
Simpson v. Morison, and Glass and Son 1786 Debt, Creditor, Reduction, Bill of Exchange, Diligence, Aliment Elisabeth Simpson, spouse of James Davidson, petitioned the Court to remit an interlocutor of Lord Alva that had allowed the reduction of her husband's land disposition. William Morison, late maltman in Stirling, and John Glass and Son, merchants there and Morison's assignees, answered the petition on behalf of themselves and Davidson for his interest.
Simpson v. Sinton's Interlocutor 1793 Bankruptcy, Debt, Trustee, Creditor, Prescription, Bill of Exchange Alexander Simpson, vintner at Bridge-end of Ayr, and other creditors of James Hunter, carrier in Ayr, a bankrupt, presented a reclaiming petition asking the Court to alter Lord Swinton's interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Sinclair & Pringle v. Smith, et al 1797 Debt, Succession, Aliment, Executor, Disposition, Heritor Sir John Sinclair of Ulster and Alexander Pringle pursued Fraser Smith, Christian and Jacobina Smith, Peter Sinclair, and George Brock for proportional relief from annuity payments secured upon the pursuers' heritable subjects. The defenders, claiming status as legatees under Captain Allan's 1764 deed, argued that they were not liable for the annuity payments, while the pursuers maintained that the defenders were bound to relieve them proportionally from that burden.
Sir Alexander Mackenzie of Gairloch v. Hector Mackenzie and His Tutor 1768 Debt, Factor, Assignation, Executor, Reduction, Disposition