AI-transcribed

An action for "reducing," i.e., cancelling a deed, or will, or setting aside a decree of a Court. In a "reduction improbation" the deed, &c., is set aside if not produced, as fully as if produced and proved invalid.

Definition source
Kinnear, J. B., Digest of House of Lords Cases Decided on Appeal from Scotland, 1709-1864 — Glossary of Scottish Law Terms (Edinburgh, 1865). Public domain.

Legal Subject: Reduction

Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
Alexander Fergusson, and Others v. The Magistrates of Glasgow 1781 Tack, Arrestment, Reduction, Charter, Tax, Sequestration The pursuers, who were also suspenders in a related action, challenged the authority of the magistrates of Glasgow to impose a duty on potatoes.
Alexander Geddes and Allan Clark v. Jean Bull 1796 Marriage, Adjudication, Legitimacy, Reduction, Succession, Disposition Alexander Geddes and Allan Clarke petitioned the Court to alter Lord Dreghorn's interlocutor in their action against Jean Bull. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Alexander v. Montgomery 1771 Contract, Interlocutor, Reduction Robert Alexander, the pursuer, owned property in the town of Ayr that contained coal deposits. On behalf of his brother Robert Alexander, William Alexander exchanged letters with James Montgomery, Dr. John Campbell, and the other partners of the coal company at Newton of Ayr. Through this series of letters, the parties apparently agreed that Montgomery would deliver and the coal company would purchase the coal from Montgomery's property. Montgomery et al. denied the existence of a formal contract. Montgomery et al. also argued that Alexander was late delivering the coal.
Alexander Young and others v. Andrew Johnston and others 1767 Election contest, Debt, Aliment, Reduction, Succession, Election The pursuers alleged that Andrew Johnston Sr., bailie of Anstruther Easter, and his son Andrew Jr. accepted money to pay off the town's debt from men who wished to run for the borough's parliament seat. The pursuers therefore sought to have the election reduced.
Andrew Heron v. Patrick Heron 1774 Debt, Arrestment, Sequestration, Inhibition, Process, Reduction Doctor Andrew Heron of Bargaly, pursuer, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor in his action against Patrick Heron, defender. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Andrew Zuill v. Thomas Bryce Buchanan 1830 Sequestration, Interlocutor, Liferent, Rent, Reduction, Infeftment Andrew Zuill or Yool, farmer at Bridgend of Boquhan, raised an action of reduction against Thomas Bryce Buchanan to set aside sheriff's decrees and interlocutors obtained for unpaid farm rents and damages, alleging the proceedings were invalid and unlawful. Buchanan reclaimed against Lord Mackenzie's interlocutor and lodged defences asserting his heritable proprietorship and the validity of a liferent grant to William Gray. Zuill subsequently reclaimed, arguing that Buchanan possessed title to demand the rents during his possession of the subjects.
Arbuthnott v. Gilmour 1765 Debt, Adjudication, Succession, Reduction, Creditor, Trust John Arbuthnott petitioned the Court to overturn an interlocutor ordering him to convey a debt and diligence to the representatives of the late James Justice. Elizabeth Gilmour, Justice’s widow, answered, arguing that the assignation to Arbuthnott had been granted as collateral security rather than in trust.
Archer v. Lord Eskgrove's Interlocutor 1793 Cautioner, Creditor, Reduction, Interlocutor, Succession, Bankruptcy
Baird v. Allan and Steuart 1793 Debt, Bankruptcy, Cautioner, Bill of Exchange, Interlocutor, Reduction Respondents, Messrs Allan & Steuart, Bankers in Edinburgh, ask the court to consider 1. Competency of the appeal and 2. Merits of the question. This case was in litigation for almost a decade leading up to this appeal. In 1783, Mr. Moffat, grazier in Portsburgh, bought a parcel of cattle from Mr. Guild with a bill of 150 £ sterling, payable in three months. Mr. Guild brought the bill to Respondents, Messrs Allan & Steuart, Bankers in Edinburgh. Respondents discounted the bill, after Mr. Moffat swore to its validity. Petitioner John Baird and Mr. John Newlands were Cautioners for Mr. Moffat. When the bill became due, Mr. Moffat refused to pay, alleging the Guilds had forged copies and discounted bills at other banks, bringing the sum of money owed to well over the original 150 £ sterling. Mr. Moffat later died, bankrupt, before the valid bill was ever found. The case was heard before Lord Justice Clerk Glenlee in 1785, Lord Stonefield Ordinary in 1792, Lord Ankerville in 1790, Lord Dreghorn and Lord Abercromby in 1792. Despite multiple judgments for Messrs Allan & Steuart, Mr. Baird still challenges the validity of the bill, and appeals the judgments against him as cautioner on the bill.
Bayne and Miller v. Wisheart-Belshes 1792 Succession, Aliment, Trustee, Reduction, Fraud, Cautioner Margaret Bayne and David Miller, baker in Perth, objected to the examination of James Dick Junior as a witness for Sir John Wisheart-Belshes in the process against him, arguing that Dick was disqualified by interest and relation. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Bayne v. Belshes 1793 Aliment, Succession, Trust, Deed, Trustee, Reduction Margaret Bayne and David Miller pursued Sir John Wishart-Belsches and James Knox to challenge the validity of a settlement executed by Thomas Ruthven. Sir John Wishart-Belsches defended the action by asserting that the deed constituted a valid deathbed settlement which Mrs. Bayne had ratified.
Belsches v. Paterson and Anderson 1786 Tack, Thirlage, Interlocutor, Decreet-Arbitral, Charter, Reduction Robert Belsches pursued the action against Mrs Mary Paterson and Alexander Farquharson regarding the extent of thirlage over the lands of Greenyards. Belsches argued that the thirlage did not extend to wheat or barley, while Paterson and Farquharson maintained that the lands of Easter Greenyards were thirled to the mill of Skeoch for omnia grana crescentia.
Bennet v. Gordon 1766 Rent, Tack, Aliment, Lease, Reduction, Debt Peter Bennet pursued Alexander Gordon of Cairnfield to challenge interlocutors of removing that Gordon had obtained against him. Bennet petitioned to have these orders remitted or altered, and replied to correct alleged errors in Gordon's answers regarding a nineteen-year lease agreement. He ultimately argued that Gordon had subjected him to unlawful oppression through repeated legal processes and fraudulent tacks.
Black v. Allason 1788 Bankruptcy, Debt, Creditor, Disposition, Reduction, Sasine William Black, carrier and portioner in Falkirk and pursuer, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor against defender Allason. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Brodie v. Grant 1767 Interlocutor, Adjudication, Possession, Tack, Reduction, Appeal Alexander Brodie of Lethen, as pursuer, sought to retain possession of the pool of Stockiebanks on the River Findhorn until the boundary of his fishing rights against Sir Ludovick Grant of Grant, Sir Alexander Grant of Delvey, Sir William Dunbar of Durn, Captain Duncan Urquhart of Burdieyards, and others, as defenders, could be finally ascertained. The defenders disputed Brodie’s fishing rights, leading to answers, replies, and duplies. In 1769, the respondents petitioned against the Lords’ affirmation of an amended interlocutor defining the Findhorn boundary, alleging contradictory judgments and complaining that the boundary had been expanded unexpectedly through judicial admission.
Campbell v. Easterby 1797 Arrestment, Debt, Sequestration, Creditor, Reduction, Interlocutor James Campbell petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor regarding an arrested vessel, and George Easterby answered, arguing that Campbell’s bond of caution did not conform to the Admiral’s interlocutor and that the arrestment had caused no diminution in the ship’s value. The dispute thus turned on the sufficiency of the security offered and the effect of the seizure upon the vessel’s valuation.
Campbell v. Macdougal 1783 Debt, Liferent, Aliment, Warrandice, Reduction, Creditor The Campbells petitioned to alter the Lord Ordinary’s interlocutor in their action against Macdougal regarding a £200 bond owed to Isobel Campbell. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Chrystie and Chrystie v. Ferguson, et al 1788 Election contest, Decreet-Arbitral, Reduction, Election, Bribery, Corruption Alexander Chrystie and another pursued Ferguson and others to reduce and set aside the election of the Magistrates and Counsellors of Burntisland, alleging bribery, corruption, and invalid form. The defenders answered, maintaining the validity of the 1789 election and arguing that a majority of uncorrupted votes sustained the result.
Clark v. Macgill 1773 Res judicata, Title Dispute, Adjudication, Possession, Interlocutor, Reduction This case was about the disputed ownership of a small piece of property on Jeffry's Close, Glasgow. In 1763, before pursuer Peter Clark purchased his property on the close, defender James Macgill petitioned the dean of guild for a warrant to enclose the disputed area. James Herbertson, Clark’s predecessor, failed to mount a challenge. However, by the time Macgill was ready to start work on the project, Clark had purchased Herbertson’s former property, which he understood to include the area proposed for enclosure. Clark complained to the dean of guild that the enclosure would be an encroachment. The dean-of-guild court ruled for Macgill, finding that the matter had been decided in the earlier proceeding, and Clark sought review. Case documents name numerous property owners and tenants in The Bridgegate (or Goosedubs) area of Glasgow.
Clay v. Coulter 1770 Debt, Adjudication, Arrestment, Insurance, Interlocutor, Reduction Pursuers Clay and Midgley, merchants in Liverpool, purchased tobacco on several occasions from McKittrick and Company, located in Virginia. To pay a balance due to Clay and Midgley, McKittrick and Company sent a shipment of tobacco to them in November 1761. Clay and Midgley obtained insurance on this shipment from defender James Coulter, a merchant in Glasgow. The ship sailed from Virginia for Liverpool, but it was captured by a French privateer in February 1762. Learning of the capture, Clay and Midgley sought to recover their losses from the insurance policy. Coulter insisted on retaining the sums he underwrote in the insurance policy, claiming that he was also a creditor of the McKittrick Company. Coulter argued that the insurance payments were debt payments to him. He contended that the cargo remained the property of McKittrick and Company until it was delivered at Liverpool to the consignees. As such, the cargo was claimable by creditors. Clay and Midgley respond that, under the established law of merchants, the consignees had an exclusive interest in the goods that the consignor's creditors could not defeat.
Counsellors of the Burgh of Burntisland 1789 Election contest, Magistrate, Election, Aliment, Decreet-Arbitral, Reduction The Provost, magistrates, and counsellors of Burntisland defended the validity of the burgh’s 1789 election of counsellors against complaints alleging bribery and seeking voidance or partial relief. Alexander Pitcairn petitioned the Court to alter a recent interlocutor that had ruled against his election as a counsellor, while William Muir and James Davidson also pursued complaints regarding the election, prompting answers from the magistrates and subsequent duplies. The magistrates later submitted a memorial arguing that Muir and Davidson’s election was void due to their non-residence and foreign status.
Creditors of Dunbar v. Grant 1793 Bankruptcy, Debt, Creditor, Adjudication, Reduction, Arrestment Alexander Penrose Cuming and other creditors of Thomas Dunbar of Westfield had obtained an interlocutor voiding, under the 1621 Act, a bond of corroboration granted by the bankrupt to Sir James Grant of Grant, Baronet, as a fraudulent preference. Grant petitioned for reconsideration, contending the bond was merely a lawful acknowledgment of debt and not a preference. The creditors answered, defending the interlocutor and responding to Grant's claims regarding the validity of the instrument.
Creditors of Newlands v. Mackenzie 1792 Creditor, Debt, Proof, Arrestment, Reduction, Bill of Exchange Andrew Mackenzie petitioned the Court to alter the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor requiring him to produce title-deeds before receiving payment of his account. The creditors of Newlands answered that Mackenzie ought to be paid without producing the writings.
Cunynghame and Gray v. Whitefoord 1796 Succession, Sequestration, Reduction, Aliment, Arrestment, Possession Francis Cunynghame, Esquire, and Gray pursued Sir John Whitefoord, Baronet, seeking sequestration of the estate of Dunduff and an order remitting to Lord Dreghorn Ordinary to name a factor. Whitefoord answered, arguing that Cunynghame had no legal claim to the estate and that sequestration was inappropriate given the defender's lawful possession and feudal titles. The dispute thus turned on whether sequestration should be granted in the face of competing assertions of right and possession.
Cunynnghame v. Whitefood, et al 1797 Succession, Deed, Aliment, Disposition, Reduction, Minor Lieutenant Colonel Francis Cunynghame pursued James Whitefoord and others, seeking to set aside a settlement executed by Whitefoord in 1792 while he was a minor. Cunynghame argued that the deed was void because a minor could not alter the succession to heritable estate established by the former proprietor, and further contended that the settlement lacked proper delivery. The litigation raised the question of whether a minor's deed could effectively convey or settle heritable property.
David Fowler v. Andrew Reid 1765 Election contest, Aliment, Bribery, Mala Fides, Corruption, Reduction Complainers David Fowler and James Miller alleged that an election in Kilrenny was tainted by corrupt practices designed to instate officials who would support Robert Alexander for a seat in parliament. Fowler and Miller sued the burgh’s elected officials, seeking to have the election vacated or, at minimum, to be reinstated in their positions as counsellor and bailie. The officials denied these allegations and alleged that members of the opposing party, including Sir John Anstruther and complainer David Fowler, had themselves engaged in corruption.
Dickie v. Lord Henderland's Interlocutor 1789 Reduction, Succession, Improbation, Feu duties, Disposition, Liferent Patrick Dickie, eldest lawful son of William Dickie and pursuer, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor against Lord Henderland. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Elliot and Others v. Dickieson 1793 Teinds, Stipend, Tack, Heritor, Reduction, Augmentation Elliot and Others raised a process to prove the tenor of a 1635 decree concerning teinds valuation against the Reverend Mr Benjamin Dickieson, seeking to have that valuation declared binding and perpetual. Dickieson defended by memorial, alleging that the process was vitiated by intrinsic nullities and defective adminicles. The pursuers replied, insisting upon the decree's validity and adducing evidence of its draft, handwriting, and prior references from 1736.
Falconer v. Dreghorn's Interlocuters 1793 Debt, Aliment, Creditor, Arbitration, Reduction, Factor Loco Tutoris George Gordon Falconer petitioned the Court to alter the interlocutor of Lord Dreghorn upholding an arbitral decree against Mrs Katharine Thomson. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Fleming and Elphinston v. Fleming and Grant 1766 Adjudication, Improbation, Succession, Prescription, Title, Reduction This case involved competing claims to the title of the lands of Board and a dispute over the validity of Robert Fleming's descendence from the Flemings of Board. In 1758, Robert Fleming and his trustee John Grant brought an action of reduction against Lady Clementina Fleming to revoke her rights to the lands of Board. In 1761, Lady Clementina and her husband Charles Elphinstone initiated this counter-suit and brought an action of reduction against Robert Fleming and John Grant, in which they claimed that Robert Fleming was an illegitimate heir of the Flemings of Board and therefore had no claim over the lands of Board under dispute.
Frank and his Tutor v. Frank, et al. 1793 Witness, Succession, Reduction, Aliment, Deed, Forgery Frank and his Tutor sought to reduce a disposition granted by the deceased Charles Frank in February 1791 in favor of the defenders. The defenders argued that the instrumentary witnesses to the deed were incompetent to depose whether they saw the party subscribe, while the pursuers challenged the competency of Janet Smith, a witness for the defenders, on the ground that her annuity depended upon the validity of the deed, and petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor refusing to admit her. The pursuers subsequently presented a formal petition for reduction and annulment of the disposition.
Gentle and Gentle v. Belch 1787 Debt, Creditor, Aliment, Bill of Exchange, Forgery, Reduction Robert Gentle and William Gentle, as pursuers, argued against defender Belch that thirteen bills of exchange bearing their names were forged and void. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
George Allan and Others v. Andrew Crambie and Others 1770 Election contest, Aliment, Arrestment, Sequestration, Election, Reduction Pursuers George Allan, Andrew Garnock, and Charles Cock challenged the September 1769 election of defender James Hunter as deacon of the Incorporation of Hammermen of the town of Kinghorn. There were 12 votes for Allan and 10 votes for Hunter, but Hunter was able to successfully challenge the qualifications of 6 of the 12 voters in favor of Allan. For example, two of the voters were apparently non-residents. Allan, on the other hand, sought to challenge 3 of the 10 votes for Hunter. One voter was struck from the rolls of the incorporation for failure to pay dues. Allan et al. sought to prove that Allan properly achieved a majority of votes in the election. The parties disputed who received the majority of votes to become the deacon of the incorporation.
George-Alexander Gordon v. Janet Gordon 1784 Tailzie, Succession, Disposition, Prescription, Infeftment, Reduction This case involved a dispute between women who sought to inherit property as heirs of line and another relative who sought to inherit under an entail. Near the end of his life, Bailie Charles Gordon executed an entail granting the lands of Pitlurg and Achorties to his son Alexander or, in the alternative, to a series of substitutes. Alexander inherited the property, but rather than claiming it as heir of entail, he took the lands under a precept of clare constat (a type of deed). Alexander also obtained a decree voiding the entail on the ground that it was completed on deathbed. Alexander held the property for more than 40 years, the length of the statutory prescription (limitations) period. When Alexander died in 1783, his sister Janet Gordon and niece Magdalene Grant claimed the property as heirs of line. Another relative, George-Alexander Gordon, claimed under the entail. Janet and Magdalene defended their claim with two arguments: (1) the entail was void; and (2) Alexander had defeated the entail by possessing the property for more than 40 years under an unlimited title. George-Alexander argued that the prescription period had been interrupted because he was a minor when he became the immediate substitute. He also challenged the decree voiding the entail.
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.
Henry Peirse and Others v. Mrs Elizabeth Ross 1791 Adjudication, Conveyance, Infeftment, Security, Heritor, Reduction Mrs Elizabeth Ross defended her adjudication of multiple Ayrshire lands against objections by Henry Peirse and others, asserting her right as heir and the validity of her Crown charter in response to their claims of prior or superior rights. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
HM Advocate v. James Cathcart Taylor 1760 Debt, Aliment, Cautioner, Bill of Exchange, Contract, Reduction His Majesty's Advocate pursued James Cathcart Taylor and argued that two bills for 300 and 200 merks were granted ob non causam, as indentures for Aneas Cameron's apprenticeship were never properly executed. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Hugh Montgomery v. Strang, Lennox and Company 1798 Decreet-Arbitral, Tack, Arbitration, Usury, Reduction, Interlocutor Strang, Lennox and Company, cotton-spinners in Eaglesham, petitioned the Court to alter a recent interlocutor respecting their claim for damages against Hugh Montgomery of Bogstown, suspender, arising from a prior loan and arbitration dispute. Montgomery submitted answers opposing the chargers' application.
Incorporation of Hammermen &c. v. Incorporations of Weaver &c. 1774 Trades, Reduction, Aliment, Privilege, Election, Succession This case was about the governance of the Glasgow trades house, an umbrella group comprising representatives of the various trades. These representatives included the deacon of each trade incorporation, along with “assistants” from each trade. The number of assistants allotted to each trade varied; the first four trades (hammermen, tailors, cordiners, and maltmen) had four assistants each, while the other trades had some lesser number. In 1771, the trades with fewer representatives moved to give themselves equal representation. The first four trades applied for a suspension of the proceedings, and later raised a process of reduction, on the ground that members of the trades house lacked the authority to adjust the number of representatives from each trade.
Janet Duncan v. John Sloss 1784 Debt, Aliment, Succession, Reduction, Creditor, Property This case was about a jointure (estate) settled on Janet Duncan, the second wife of John Sloss Sr., in a contract of marriage. Sloss’s heir, John Sloss Jr., argued that the jointure should be reduced because it was exorbitant and irrational.
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 Telfair v. Dorothea Telfair and Hugh Shaw 1770 Will, Deathbed Deed, Debt, Aliment, Reduction, Succession The late Samuel Telfair had married defender Dorothea Telfair in 1764. Before his death, on April 8, 1767, Samuel deeded to Dorothea all of his moveable effects as well as a liferent in a tenement of houses in the burgh of Kirkcudbright. Samuel Telfair died on May 10, 1767. Dorothea then married Hugh Schaw. Pursuer Jean Telfair was Samuel Telfair's sister and only heir. Jean sought to void the liferent deed to Dorothea on the grounds that Samuel was of weak mental capacity during the marriage and that he disposed of the property in a deathbed deed. She brought an action for reducing the liferent investment. Dorothea maintained that Samuel Telfair was in an "ordinary state of health" at the time of this disposition and "perfectly sound in judgment." At issue in this case was Samuel Telfair's capacity to dispose of his personal and real property.
John Ballenden v. The Duke of Argyle 1791 Feu duties, Interlocutor, Infeftment, Charter, Reduction, Irritancy John Ballenden petitioned the Court to alter a recent interlocutor and subsequently petitioned against an Inner-house interlocutor, seeking reversal of the orders. The Duke of Argyll answered, resisting Ballenden's arguments that the interlocutor should be altered.
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 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 Scougal v. Robert Young, and Others 1798 Insurance, Fraud, Reduction, Agent, Debt, Adjudication John Scougal sued Robert Young and the other underwriters for an unpaid average loss on flax and pot ashes damaged when the vessel ran aground, notwithstanding that most of the underwriters had already settled. The defenders argued that the insurance policy had not been ordered before the loss was known, and maintained that even if it had been, they were not deceived by any concealment.
John Zephaniah Holwell, and his Attorney v. Lady Cuming 1795 Debt, Bankruptcy, Aliment, Succession, Reduction, Creditor John Zephaniah Holwell, as creditor, sued Lady Cuming to invalidate her bond of provision on the grounds that it was granted subsequent to his prior debt and without proof of delivery or bankruptcy. Lady Cuming defended the action, arguing that a bond of provision executed before marriage was not voidable as fraudulent or in prejudice of creditors. The parties exchanged informations presenting these opposing positions on whether the settlement could be set aside at the instance of prior creditors.
Loch, et al v. Lord Hailes' Interlocutor 1789 Suspension, Interlocutor, Res judicata, Inhibition, Reduction, Declinator John Loch, Esq., and others petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor of Lord Hailes concerning the quartering of soldiers in Caltonhill. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
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.

Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 1129)