Adjudication of Bankruptcy. Also the appointment by the Court of a receiver of the rents and profits of an estate pending litigation of the title. SEQUESTRATION FOR RENT; Distress by a landlord.
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.
| Case | Date | Legal Subject | Abstract |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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. |
| 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. |
| Low v. Knowles | 1796 | Rent, Sequestration, Tack, Assignation, Caution, Lease | Andrew Knowles defended an action by John Low and John Richardson regarding rent obligations under the Act of Sederunt 1756, maintaining that he was not liable for the full rent in light of prior payments and the pursuers' conduct. He further alleged that Low had failed to pay rents and had caused ruin to the farm, and that the caution found was insufficient to secure future rents. Knowles also petitioned against a Sheriff's interlocutor requiring double caution for the same rents, arguing that such a requirement was unjust and contrary to the spirit of the Act. |
| 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'Tier v. Lord Stonefield's Interlocutor | 1789 | Tack, Lease, Arrestment, Sequestration, Reparation, Bankruptcy | John M'Tier petitioned to alter Lord Stonefield's interlocutor, which held him liable for rebuilding the byre and kiln at Chang and for the value of moveable goods carried away. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| 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. |
| Mackay and Fullerton v. Dalrymples et al | 1795 | Succession, Possession, Reduction, Entail, Prescription, Sequestration | Mrs Marianne Mackay, subsequently the Honourable Mrs Hamilton Fullarton, and her husband Colonel William Fullarton pursued Sir Hew Hamilton Dalrymple and other representatives of the Dalrymple family regarding succession to the estate of Bargeny, asserting rights as nearest substitutes under a 1688 marriage contract and entail which provided for female-line succession, while the defenders claimed title under a 1742 charter and seisin. The litigation involved petitions for sequestration of the estate, disputes over the custody of title-deeds and the removal of seals from estate repositories, and exchanges regarding the pursuers' standing to displace the defenders as heirs-apparent, the validity of a plea of minority, and allegations of contravention of irritant clauses. The pursuers sought to compel production of writings relied upon by the defenders and to conjoin reduction and declarator processes to ascertain their position under the entail, while the defenders maintained their lawful possession and disputed the pursuers' entitlement to the succession. |
| 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 Town-Council of the Burgh of Inverkeithing v. Graham | 1789 | Lease, Tack, Rent, Charter, Sequestration, Privilege | The Magistrates and Town-Council of the Burgh of Inverkeithing pursued George Graham of Kinross for payment of £23 sterling yearly for the customs of the town under the roup of January 1785. They also reclaimed an interlocutor that had granted Graham the sole right to the fairs and markets customs, asserting the burgh’s historic entitlement to levy those same dues. |
| 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. |
| Marshall v. Taylor | 1796 | Bankruptcy, Trustee, Disposition, Creditor, Sequestration, Fraud | James Marshall, Writer to the Signet and trustee, challenged a preference claimed by Taylor and Smith over the proceeds of the lands of Dubhall and Auld's Acre from a bankrupt estate, asserting that the bankrupt held no valid title at the time of the bond. After the Court sustained the respondents' claim by interlocutor, Marshall petitioned to have that decision altered. The respondents opposed the petition as an irregular and belated reclaiming motion, arguing it was barred by acquiescence and prior litigation. |
| 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. |
| Maxwell v. Lord Swinton's Interlocutor | 1789 | Arrestment, Action, Sequestration, Creditor, Mala Fides, Citation | Charles Maxwell-Campbell petitioned the Court of Session to alter an interlocutor issued by Lord Swinton. 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. |
| Mead v. Swinton | 1796 | Succession, Terce, Possession, Sequestration, Interlocutor, Adjudication | Lady Hannay claimed that as a widow she was entitled to the worst of two mansion-houses on the estate of Kirkdale as an appendage to her terce. The common agent maintained that she had no claim to a second mansion-house over and above her terce. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| Murray and Creditors vs. Blair and Creditors | 1793 | Bankruptcy, Ranking of Creditors, Debt, Creditor, Sequestration, Adjudication | |
| 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. |
| Naismith v. M'Morrow | 1783 | Sequestration, Factor | This case was about competing claims to rents on the estate of William Maxwell of Ardwell. In 1780, Maxwell’s tenants initiated a proceeding to prioritize various claims made by Maxwell’s creditors. As part of that proceeding, the Lord Ordinary sequestrated the disputed rents and appointed Thomas Naismith as factor. However, in 1781, two of Maxwell’s tenants initiated a second proceeding regarding their rents. In the second proceeding, Elizabeth M’Morrow obtained a preference based on an arrestment she had served on the tenants. Naismith challenged M’Morrow’s preference. However, M’Morrow responded that the earlier sequestration was improperly obtained and that, in any case, her arrestment predated the sequestration. |
| 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. |
| Palmer and Others v. Macmillan | 1794 | Interlocutor, Advocation, Contract, Property, Sequestration, Rent | Palmer and Others, as defenders, argued that the Court of Session should affirm a Sheriff's interlocutor prohibiting Macmillan from exposing butcher-meat in front of his house. They presented information maintaining that the prohibition ought to be upheld. |
| 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. |
| Principal Clerks of Session v. Charles Steuart | 1788 | Sequestration, Aliment, Succession, Creditor, Mala Fides, Arrestment | The Principal Clerks of Session brought a penal action against Charles Steuart, as heir of the late John Steuart, seeking to hold him liable for his father’s neglect of duty in preserving extracted decreets and their warrants. Steuart argued that he ought to be assoilzied from the charge, while the pursuers maintained that he was bound as heir to indemnify them for the expenses and damages arising from his father’s failure. |
| 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. |
| Ramsays v. The Magistrates and Town-Council of Edinburgh | 1792 | Sequestration, Aliment, Trustees, Trust, Tax, Public Works | John Ramsay pursued the Magistrates and Town-Council of Edinburgh, contending that the defenders were bound by statute to take three shops and pay their value or assess recompense. The defenders answered that the pursuer's claim for damages was incompetent and premature under the statute. The case turned on whether the statutory provisions obliged the town to acquire the shops and compensate the pursuer, and whether the remedy was properly raised. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| Robertson and Farquharson v. Cameron, et al | 1786 | Arrestment, Aliment, Sequestration, Creditor, Defamation, Damages | The defenders Daniel Cameron, Joseph Fyfe, James Boyd, and Thomas Miller filed an information arguing that the pursuers Robertson and Farquharson were unlawfully detained in prison after being apprehended for attempted robbery. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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, 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. |
| T. Mansfield (Stuart's Trustee) v. Walker's Trustees | 1830 | Sequestration, Bankruptcy, Trustee, Creditor, Sasine, Disposition | Thomas Mansfield, as trustee upon the sequestrated estate of James Stuart, raised a summons of reduction against John Sutherland Sinclair and subsequently against Josiah Walker and the representatives of Professor Walker, contesting the defenders' assertion of a right to preference over the general body of creditors. The process was advanced to the record, after which Mansfield submitted a revised case maintaining that the defenders' claim to priority in the bankrupt estate was unfounded. |
| 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 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. |
| 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. |
| Thomsons v. Campbell | 1789 | Sequestration, Bill of Exchange, Reduction, Multiple-Poinding, Interdict, Arrestment | Andrew, George, and Andrew Thomsons petitioned the Court to alter Lord Monboddo's interlocutor. Neil Campbell of Inverliver answered, arguing that the petitioners had misstated the grounds of suspension and the nature of his plea. |
| 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. |
| Wilson, et al v. Clerks of Session | 1789 | Agent, Process, Succession, Aliment, Sequestration, Libel | Janet Wilson, widow of James Maiklem, and Maiklems pursued the Clerks of Session for indemnification for the loss of a process and the costs of reinstating the action. The Clerks answered, denying any fault and asserting that the process had been duly transmitted and returned. |
| 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. |
