|Ferrier v. Grant, and Others
||Trustee, Ranking and Sale, Title to Pursue
||This case was about the standing of an individual creditor to raise objections regarding a judicial sale, where a trustee had been appointed to act for the creditors' common interest. Thomas Fairholm and Adam Fairholm became bankrupt and conveyed their estate to Ludovick Grant, who was appointed trustee for the Fairholms’ creditors. All of the creditors acceded to this arrangement. Grant then obtained a heritable bond over lands belonging to Samuel Garbet, Francis Garbet, and Charles Gascoigne, who were Fairholm’s major debtors, and pursued a judicial sale based on that bond. However, Helen Ferrier, a creditor of the Fairholms, objected that certain lands had been omitted from the sale. In particular, Ferrier argued for the inclusion of lands to which Gascoigne had renounced his liferent rights after the proceeding commenced. In response, Grant and the other creditors claimed that the disputed lands were of no value. They also argued that Grant, as trustee, held all rights to the creditors’ debts and to the bond upon which the sale was based, and therefore that he was the only person entitled to take action on them. Similarly, they argued that only Grant, as pursuer of the sale, had standing to object to the omission of the lands. Ferrier responded that Grant held the debts and the bond for the benefit of the creditors, and that she, as a creditor, was also entitled to rely on them.
|Inglis v. Gray
||Tack, Title to Pursue
||This case was about defender Walter Gray’s tack on the estate of Langwell. Shortly after Walter agreed to the tack, his brother William purchased Langwell. William granted bonds over the estate to Hugh Inglis and John Cartier as security for certain debts. Later, Inglis and Carter initiated court proceedings involving the property, which was sequestered under the supervision of a factor. Inglis also sought to void Walter’s tack or have Walter removed from the estate. Inglis alleged that Walter’s rent was far below the value of the property as stated on a rent roll that Walter had endorsed. Inglis also claimed that the tack would expire soon and that Walter was in arrears on his rent. Walter objected that Inglis’s security right, unlike a full property right, did not entitle him to challenge the tack or remove a tenant; when Inglis attempted to add the factor as a pursuer, Walter argued that this was a procedural irregularity. Walter also argued that William had granted him a new lease and that he was not in arrears on rent.
|Penrose-Cumming v. Rev. Leslie
||Libel, Title to Pursue, Oath, Perjury, Freeholder
||This case was about the enforcement of qualifications to vote in a parliamentary election. Alexander Penrose-Cumming, a candidate for Parliament and a freeholder in Moray, alleged that James, Earl Fife, had distributed fictitious freehold interests in order to skew the vote. Before voting, the holders of these allegedly fictitious interests were required to swear an oath attesting to their qualifications. Based on this oath, Penrose-Cumming charged the voters with perjury. One of the accused voters was Rev. William Leslie, the pannel (i.e., the defendant) in this case. Leslie’s qualification to vote rested on a wadset (similar to a mortgage) of a superiority over part of the lands of Kinneddar. During the proceeding against him, Leslie raised a number of arguments against the charges. These included that Penrose-Cumming lacked the kind of specific injury that would give him title to pursue the case, that Penrose-Cumming had failed to allege sufficiently detailed facts, and that Leslie's rights were not, in fact, fictitious.