| Messrs Peters, Bogle, and Marshall, arresting Creditors of James Dunlop, late Merchant in Glasgow v. Messrs Speirs, Blackburn, and Syme, Trustees of said James Dunlop
||27 Jul 1770
||Pursuers Thomas Peter, William Bogle, and Robert Marshall were creditors of James Dunlop, merchant of Glasgow. Defenders Speirs, Blackburn, and Andrew Syme were Dunlop's trustees. Shortly after granting trust-rights to Speirs, Blackburn, and Syme, Dunlop went bankrupt. The pursuers refused to bind themselves to Dunlop's trust, preferring instead the ordinary remedies of law to collect their debts. The pursuers arrested quantities of tobacco and hogshead staves from Dunlop's ship, en route from Virginia to Port Glasgow. At issue in this case was the validity of the trust-deed granted by James Dunlop, and the effects of it. According to the pursuers' interpretation of The Bankrupt Act of 1696 the deed was void and ineffectual because it was granted in a foreign country. The trustees argued that the deed was effectual and a valid title in their favor.
|Craig v. Anderson
||6 Jul 1776
||Joseph Heatly was an engineer who became insolvent before he could complete a projected coal-work outside of Glasgow. His estate being sequestered. His trustees put Heatly's funds and their own private capital into completing this coal work, projecting that the profits from the venture would more than pay back Heatly's debts and the expenses of its founding. John Anderson, one of Heatly's creditors, believed the trustees had neither the background nor the aptitude to manage a coal-work, and did not expect that this undertaking would result in him receiving the debt owed to him. He brought a summons and executed an inhibition against the trustees. In response the trustees petitioned the Court to have this inhibition suspended. Lord Kennet granted a sist (judicial stay) on the inhibition, "till the bill and answers should be advised." Because of this sist the inhibition was not recorded or executed within forty days, but the trustees feared that Anderson would file another one. They petitioned the Court to rule that Anderson could not execute an inhibition against the trustees of Heatly's estate. The Court dismissed this petition.
|Young v. Soutar
||Trustees, Congreagation of Antiburgher, Lease
||The pursuers questioned the property rights over a lands belonging to the Antiburgher Seceders at Dumbarrow, near Arbroath, where they were as tenants. Defenders stated that they were designated as two of the trustees for the Congreagation of Antiburgher and that their rights over that premises derives from the direction and jurisdiction of Antiburgher Associate Synod. However, Pursuers alleged that the existance of the trust over these premises can not be prove by the deeds issued in that time.