Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
Smart v. Interlocutor of Court 1793 Hypothec, Debt, Interlocutor, Bankruptcy, Collusion, Contract John Smart presented a reclaiming petition asking the Court of Session to alter its recent interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Steuart v. Craig 1793 Debt, Trust, Creditor, Bankruptcy, Infeftment, Aliment David Steuart, trustee on the sequestrated estate of James Stein, petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor pronounced by the Lord Justice-Clerk, and James Craig, trustee on the sequestrated estate of John Stein, answered that a heritable bond ought to be held in trust for John Stein to the extent of £6,437:7:6. The litigation thus presented a contest between competing trustees regarding the allocation of assets between the two bankrupt estates.
Steuart v. Ramsden 1793 Sequestration, Penalty, Arrestment, Jurisdiction, Forfeiture, Debt Steuart pursued Ramsden to remit the seizure of effects from the sequestrated premises of James Hill, contending that Ramsden's poinding of the goods was illegal. Hill separately sought remission of penalties and forfeiture awarded by the Edinburgh Justices of Peace for alleged accounting breaches, which Ramsden defended as clear statutory violations warranting the assessed amounts. Ferguson petitioned to challenge both the legality of Ramsden's poinding and the jurisdiction of the Justices to impose penalties beyond the statutory limit, while Ramsden additionally sought review of an interlocutor regarding preference over the poinded effects in Hill's bankruptcy.
Stewart v. Hoome 1789 Succession, Debt, Tailzie, Disposition, Entail, Adjudication Charles Stewart of Annapolis in Maryland, Esquire, and David Stewart his brother and attorney, as pursuers, argued against Hoome that the defender's father lacked power to alter the entail succession by marriage settlement. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Stewart, et al v. Lord Swinton's Interlocutor 1789 Arrestment, Sequestration, Debt, Assignation, Creditor, Disposition Stewart and others petitioned the Court to alter Lord Swinton’s interlocutor regarding the arrestment of goods held in trust for creditors. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Stobie v. Morison, et al 1788 Succession, Debt, Proof, Aliment, Collation, Action David Stobie, writer in Edinburgh, as pursuer, disputed Catharine Morison's claim to half the executry of her deceased brother Adam Morison. Morison and her husband, John Wilson, petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Stonefield in the cause. Stobie answered the petition, resisting her claim to the executry.
Storie v. Burn 1795 Arrestment, Debt, Aliment, Stipend, Creditor, Heritor Andrew Storie, as factor for the representatives of James Aitken, petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor of Lord Monboddo regarding whether creditors could attach a minister’s stipend. The respondent maintained that the stipend was alimentary in nature and therefore immune from attachment.
Sword v. Auld 1794 Aliment, Debt, Arrestment, Theft, Creditor, Evidence Sword pursued William Auld, a carrier, for the loss of two boxes of muslins stolen from his carts in Glasgow in May 1789, claiming damages of L. 102:10:9 Sterling. Auld, who was no longer domiciled in Scotland, argued that a carrier was not liable for goods stolen while under his charge and that the pursuer’s proof of value was unsupported. After the Court suspended the decree against Auld, Sword petitioned for reconsideration of that interlocutor, and Auld replied that the goods had been safely delivered to Glasgow where the risk passed to Duncan, who agreed to take charge.
Sym v. King 1796 Debt, Prescription, Statute of limitations, Bill of Exchange, Trustees, Creditor Sym pursued King to compel production of vouchers for payments the defender claimed to have made to creditors of his deceased son James King. King resisted by pleading prescription to bar action on a 1782 bill, citing a thirteen-year lapse and the debtor’s post-due assurances.
The Creditors of James Stein v. Newnham, Everett and Company 1792 Bankruptcy, Debt, Creditor, Infeftment, Sasine, Sequestration The creditors of James Stein, represented by David Steuart as trustee, pursued Newnham, Everett and Company regarding a heritable bond conveyed to the defenders as collateral security for a cash account. The trustee argued that the bond was ineffectual as to all sums because it constituted indefinite security for future advances, while the defenders maintained that it remained valid notwithstanding the bankrupt estate.
The Daughters of Alexander Drummond v. The Creditors of May Drummond 1794 Debt, Prescription, Creditor, Aliment, Cautioner, Succession The Daughters of Alexander Drummond, as pursuers, and the Creditors of May Drummond, as defenders, were parties to a suit in which the Viscount of Arbuthnot petitioned the Court to permit payment of three bills granted by his deceased grandfather to his deceased father, dated 1773–1774 and payable in 1775. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
The Earl of Fife v. Mrs Martha M'Kenzie and Elizabeth Fraser 1795 Succession, Aliment, Disposition, Debt, Executor, Creditor The Earl of Fife pursued Mrs Martha M'Kenzie and Elizabeth Fraser, as executors of the deceased Alexander Udny of Udny, to enforce postnuptial settlements executed in 1769 whereby the Earl claimed succession to Mrs Udny's heritable estates, moveable goods, and annuities. The defenders challenged the validity of the deeds and claimed the estate's rents and assets. Following an interlocutor issued in May 1795, both parties petitioned the Court to alter that determination.
The Lord Provost and Magistrates of Edinburgh v. The Faculty of Advocates, and the Society of Writers to the Signet, in behalf of the College of Justice 1787 Jurisdiction, Aliment, Privilege, College of Justice, Tax, Debt The Lord Provost and Magistrates of Edinburgh pursued the Faculty of Advocates and the Society of Writers to the Signet, acting on behalf of the College of Justice, for payment of poor's rates assessed upon the College. The suspenders maintained that the College enjoyed an established legal exemption from such assessments by virtue of statute, usage, and judicial acknowledgment, while the magistrates contended that no such privilege existed in law. Both parties submitted informations setting forth their respective positions on whether the College of Justice was liable to contribute to the maintenance of the city's poor.
The Magistrates and Town-Council of Paisley v. The Freeholders and Commissioners of Supply of the County of Renfrew 1792 Arrestment, Burgh, Burgh of Barony, Charter, Debt, Aliment The Magistrates and Town-Council of Paisley pursued the Freeholders and Commissioners of Supply of the County of Renfrew regarding liability for expenses incurred in maintaining prisoners committed to the burgh's custody. Sir Michael Stewart and others, representing the defenders, argued that the magistrates were personally liable for costs arising from prisoners committed on their own warrants. The pursuers countered that, as a burgh of barony with a sufficient prison, they were entitled to be relieved of such expenses from the public rogue money fund.
The Marchioness of Titchfield and her Husband, for his interest v. Alexander Penrose Cuming 1797 Succession, Debt, Liferent, Entail, Heritor, Disposition The Marchioness of Titchfield and her husband, for his interest, pursued Alexander Penrose Cuming, who defended on the plea of res judicata. The pursuers petitioned the Court to alter the interlocutor sustaining this defence, and Cuming answered. They then presented a second petition asking the Court to overturn the interlocutor regarding the res judicata plea, to which Cuming also answered.
The Trustees for the Creditors of John Brough v. The Heirs of Robert Selby 1794 Bankruptcy, Debt, Creditor, Security, Cautioner, Sequestration The Trustees for the Creditors of John Brough pursued the Heirs of Robert Selby regarding the extent of security afforded by a heritable bond of relief granted by Brough in 1783. The Trustees contended that the bond secured the sum drawn at the date of seisin notwithstanding subsequent fluctuations in the cash account. The Heirs maintained that the bond subsisted only to the extent of the limited sum until the cash account was closed and the infeftment renounced.
The Trustees for the Creditors of William Bogle v. John Ballantyne 1791 Bankruptcy, Debt, Arrestment, Creditor, Compensation, Trustee James Macgregor and others, as trustees for the creditors of William Bogle, late merchant in Glasgow, petitioned the Court to alter a recent interlocutor in their action against John Ballantyne, banker in Ayr, for repayment of trust stock. Ballantyne answered the petition, contesting the trustees' claim for repayment.
The Trustees of the late Robert Vans Agnew v. Mrs Frances Dunlop or Agnew & Others 1832 Debt, Succession, Disposition, Expenses, Assignation, Legacy The Trustees of the late Robert Vans Agnew maintained the validity of a disposition dated 1808 against Mrs Frances Dunlop or Agnew and others, lodging an additional appendix to their reclaiming note that asserted the deed remained binding upon the defenders. The Earl of Galloway and J. A. S. M'Kenzie subsequently reclaimed against an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Fullerton, petitioning the Court to alter that determination.
The Younger Children of Lauchlan Mactavish v. His Creditors 1787 Succession, Debt, Aliment, Creditor, Disposition, Heritor The younger children of Lauchlan Mactavish pursued his creditors regarding provisions settled upon them under a marriage contract. The creditors defended by seeking equal creditor rank for Margaret, Lauchlan, and the children under the contract provisions contingent upon the father’s lifetime events, while also arguing that such provisions were not exigible during his lifetime and therefore did not compete against the creditors’ onerous debts.
Thomas and Alexander Peters, Merchants in Glasgow, v. Alexander Spiers, Andrew Blackburn, and Others, Trustees for James Dunlop, Merchant in Glasgow 1766 Debt In 1763, Glasgow merchant James Dunlop, whose affairs at the time were in a state of confusion, arranged for Alexander Speirs, Andrew Blackburn, and Andrew Syme to become his trustees. Under this agreement, Speirs et al agreed that all debts they recovered on Dunlop's behalf would go first to paying for the duties Dunlop owed on imported tobacco. In July 1763, the ship Betsy arrived in Greenock from Virginia with tobacco belonging to James Dunlop and 16 hogsheads of tobacco consigned to Thomas and Alexander Peters of Glasgow by Walter Peter and Company in Virginia. Dunlop traveled to Greenock to enter his tobacco. At the request of Thomas and Alexander Peters, Dunlop entered in their 16 hogsheads well and was repaid the import duties. When Thomas and Alexander Peters could not secure the delivery of their 16 hogsheads from Dunlop, they brought action against Dunlop in the Court of Session, and as a result the tobacco was arrested in the hands of Josiah Corthine, collector of the customs at Port Glasgow. In August 1764, Dunlop and his agents William Wallace and William King exported 89 hogsheads of tobacco in the ship Hero for Bourdeaux, and they were to receive payment from Corthine on this shipment as a drawback. The Pursuers claimed a right to this sum as repayment for their tobacco, and Speirs et al claimed a right to this sum under trust-right from Dunlop in bankruptcy.
Thomas Cowan v. William Aitchison and William Walker 1797 Debt, Sequestration, Arrestment, Cautioner, Personal Protection, Creditor Thomas Cowan, flesher in Musselburgh, pursued William Aitchison, distiller at St Clement's Wells, and William Walker, attorney in Exchequer, upon a caution bond. Aitchison and Walker petitioned the Court twice to alter a recent interlocutor, first in January 1797 and again in June 1797. Cowan answered both petitions, and in his September answers maintained that the petitioners' failure to present the debtor in February 1796 had forfeited the bond.
Thomas Cranstoun v. James-Ann M'Dowal, and her Factor loco tutoris 1797 Debt, Bankruptcy, Creditor, Trustee, Cautioner, Aliment Thomas Cranstoun, Writer to the Signet and trustee for the creditors of the late Reverend Dr. John M'Farlan, sued Miss James-Ann M'Dowall and her factor to recover dividends drawn from the doctor's estate by creditors of her deceased relatives, disputing her entitlement to retain sums drawn upon debts for which M'Farlan had stood merely as cautioner. Miss M'Dowall initially petitioned to overturn Lord Monboddo's interlocutor, prompting answers from Cranstoun, who later petitioned to alter the Court's subsequent interlocutors and answered the defender's pleadings before bringing the final suit to enforce recovery under the court-approved accounting report.
Thomas Manson, Writer in Edinburgh v. John Angus, Merchant in Edinburgh 1771 Debt Andrew Farquhar, a shopkeeper in Edinburgh, owed money to defender John Angus, a merchant in Edinburgh. To satisfy this debt, Farquhar indorsed to Angus a bill payable by pursuer Thomas Manson. Farquhar later went bankrupt and was committed to prison. Manson refused to pay the bill and alleged that the transaction between Farquhar and Angus was "fraudulent and usurious." Manson argued, for example, that Angus sold goods to Farquhar at exorbitant profits. Angus denied this claim and maintained that Manson must pay the bill.
Thomas Thorburn v. Thomas Ranken 1832 Debt, Creditor, Trustee, Ranking and Sale, Disposition, Interest
Thomson &c v. St. Clair Erskine 1794 Debt, Succession, Entail, Disposition, Aliment, Heritor Thomson and others, as petitioners, sought alteration of an interlocutor that had ordered them to pay Lady Erskine's annuity from Whitsunday 1791. Sir James St Clair Erskine, as defender, argued that the bond of annuity granted by General St Clair constituted his personal debt rather than that of Mr Thomson, general disponee of the late Colonel St Clair. The question was whether liability for the annuity fell upon Colonel St Clair's estate or upon Sir James as successor to the grantor's obligation.
Tod v. McLintock 1780 Debt, Prescription, Bill of Exchange, Aliment, Evidence, Arrestment Robert M'Lintock, defender, petitioned the Court to alter a recent interlocutor finding him liable to Tod. He subsequently petitioned to overturn the specific finding that he was liable for £20 11s. 11d. plus interest.
Tod v. Thomson 1792 Arrestment, Creditor, Debt, Assignment, Assignation, Witness Alexander Thomson, defender in the action raised by Tod, petitioned the Court on 2 March 1792 to alter Lord Monboddo's interlocutor against him. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Trustees of Archibald Chessels v. Messrs Hervey and Fawell 1791 Succession, Debt, Arrestment, Aliment, Creditor, Disposition The Trustees of Archibald Chessels raised an action against Messrs Hervey and Fawell to contest the validity of an arrestment laid upon excise rents held by the Commissioners. The defenders had sought to recover a debt through the arrestment based on a
Turnbull v. Proudfoot 1795 Debt, Creditor, Aliment, Bill of Exchange, Forgery, Arrestment John Hagart, appearing for the respondent Proudfoot, argued that Proudfoot was under no legal obligation to answer letters and therefore should be assoilzied in the action brought by Turnbull. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Viscount Arbuthnot v. John Douglas 1793 Debt, Creditor, Prescription, Aliment, Bill of Exchange, Succession Viscount Arbuthnot pursued John Douglas for payment of bills granted by Douglas’s deceased father to Arbuthnot’s grandfather in the 1770s. Douglas denied liability, asserting that the bills were prescribed and that prior obligations had been settled by bond and mutual understanding. Arbuthnot maintained the debts were not prescribed and were supported by a decree of constitution, and subsequent petitions sought to alter interlocutors and obtain payment.
White v. Innerhouse Interlocutor 1801 Aliment, Interlocutor, Creditor, Sheriff, Debt, Succession Mary Tait, spouse of William White, answered the petition of George White by asserting that the grandfather was legally liable to support his granddaughter during the father's absence. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
White v. Stalker and M'Ra 1788 Debt, Aliment, Succession, Interlocutor, Cautioner, Creditor John White petitioned to alter the interlocutor regarding the intromissions and discharge of John Stalker, the tutor who died in 1779, insisting upon his own posthumous call. Poor Isobel Stalker and Mary M'Ra answered, responding to the Lord Ordinary’s interlocutor upon defects in the tutor’s accounts and inventory.
Wilkins v. Campbell 1798 Debt, Arrestment, Creditor, Jurisdiction, Sequestration, Cautioner Miss Elizabeth Wilkins pursued William Campbell, Sheriff-Clerk of Ayr, seeking to hold him liable for a debt on the ground that he had rendered himself responsible by accepting an illegal bond of caution for Edmund Kelly. Campbell defended by denying liability, citing irregular bail procedures and absence of malversation, and challenged the sufficiency of Reverend Jones’s affidavit while seeking to introduce his own account of the Dublin security transactions. Both parties subsequently petitioned the Court regarding an interlocutor—Wilkins concerning her entitlement to expenses and Campbell seeking its alteration—to which Wilkins and Quintin Johnston answered maintaining their position on the bond’s improper acceptance.
William Graham v. The Creditors of Harry Graham 1792 Debt, Creditor, Succession, Ranking and Sale, Ranking of Creditors, Adjudication William Graham, as heir of entail of the Hourston estate, challenged the claims of Harry Graham’s creditors, maintaining that their debts were invalid by reason of post-entail timing and defective adjudications. He further alleged that the common agent Mr Young had violated his duty to defend all parties equally by improperly using the common fund to support objections to the claims while simultaneously answering them.
William Richardson v. Martin Fenwick 1772 Debt, Competition between Creditors William Richardson, pursuer, and Martin Fenwick, defender, both sought to collect on payments originally from John Bedford and Son, an English firm. Due to financial trouble, checks endorsed by John Bedford and Son could not be cashed. Instead, Richardson and Fenwick sought to collect from several Scottish firms that owed money to John Bedford and Son, such as Gibson and Balfour, Colin Mclaren and Samuel Patron. Under a "letter of arrestment ad jurisdictionem fundandam," a creditor could bring a foreign debtor's property under the jurisdiction of the Scottish court. In this case, the foreign debtor's property was debt. Fenwick used two arrestments in the hands of Gibson and Balfour, as debtors to Bedford and Son, to establish jurisdiction. He afterwards obtained a decree against Bedford and Son for payment and recourse. On the other hand, Richardson, upon the registered protest of his bill, had taken out letters of arrestment against Gibson and Balfour, and M'Laren and others, as debtors to Bedford and Son. Richardson and Fenwick disputed who had priority to these debts. Fenwick alleged that Richardson's procedure for authorizing letters of arrestment was irregular and therefore ineffective. Richardson disputed Fenwick's claim, and further argued that Fenwick incorrectly identified the debtor as Bedford and Son instead of John Bedford and Son.
William Stewart v. Mrs. Garland or Pirie and James Pirie 1831 Succession, Liferent, Assignation, Debt, Tack, Deed William Stewart, Sheriff-Clerk of Kincardineshire, pursued Mrs. Garland or Pirie and James Pirie for multiple poinding and exoneration of debts owed to the deceased John Pirie, tenant in Cairnbeg. Stewart condescended on the fund in medio against the relict and representatives of the late tenant, and James Pirie subsequently lodged a reclaiming note against Lord Corehouse's interlocutor.
Wilson and Company v. Hamilton and Company 1772 Debt, Agent, Sell of goods James Wilson and Company of Kilmarnock manufactured woolen carpets for sale in London. Since 1762, Malcolm Hamilton and Company had served as James Wilson & Company's London agent . The dispute related to a large quantity of James Wilson & Company's carpets left in a wharf cellar in London for five years. James Wilson & Company argued that because of Malcolm Hamiliton & Company's negligence it suffered some loss. The pursuer claimed that the carpets had been significantly damaged due to Malcolm Hamiliton & Company's neglect. The defender disputed these claims.
Wilson and Corse v. Woods 1797 Debt, Letter of Credit, Security, Bill of Exchange, Creditor, Succession Wilson and Corse, as pursuers, sued John Woods for breach of a guarantee letter he had written to authorize credit to the foreign buyer Gray. They argued that Woods’s liability extended beyond fifty casks under trade practice and the statute defining cask sizes. Woods responded by memorial, contending that his letter to Gray was merely an inquiry with conditional security rather than an unqualified mandate or obligation of cautionry.
Wilson v. Wilson 1793 Debt, Arrestment, Aliment, Tack, Succession, Creditor James Wilson junior defended against an action by George, David, and Mary Wilson, children of the deceased George Wilson, who claimed that he held funds belonging to his father James Wilson senior, a debtor under an arbitral decree. The pursuers subsequently lodged information alleging that the defenders had fraudulently concealed profits from the farm of Foulden Newton and colluded to evade court judgment.
Woddrop v. Finlay 1793 Decreet-Arbitral, Tack, Arbitration, Interlocutor, Reduction, Debt John Finlay, defender, answered the petition of William Woddrop, pursuer, arguing that the interlocutor should not be altered and that the arbiters’ explanation was necessary to ascertain material justice. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
York Building Company v. Roperhead 1791 Debt, Sequestration, Assignment, Assignation, Creditor, Reduction The Governor and Company of Undertakers for Raising the Thames Water in York Buildings petitioned the Court against Roperhead to find that assignees of bonds must take every objection competent against the cedent. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
York-Buildings Company v. Martin, Stone, and Foote 1791 Debt, Creditor, Adjudication, Ranking of Creditors, Bankruptcy, Sequestration The York-Buildings Company pursued an action against Martin, Stone, and Foote to revise the Court's interlocutors of 1783 and 1786 and to overturn Lord Monboddo's interlocutor respecting objections to adjudications against the Company's estates. The Company contended that the common agent had acted improperly by precipitating sales without ensuring that debts were liquidated. They sought revision of the earlier orders and reversal of the ruling on the adjudications based on this alleged impropriety in the sales process.
Young v. Thompson 1794 Arrestment, Insanity, Deed, Succession, Debt, Aliment
Young, and Husband v. Sinclair, et al 1796 Debt, Creditor, Assignation, Penalty, Succession, Aliment Mrs Janet Young and James Riddoch, her husband, sought recovery of the net expenses they had incurred in enforcing payment of an annuity due under a heritable bond. Mrs Janet Sinclair, her husband James Smith, William Innes, and William Innes as Administrator-in-Law resisted, contending that they ought not to be subjected to the expenses of process under a general decerniture for penalty.