Legal Subject: Trustees

Case	Date	Legal Subject	Abstract
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	1770	Trustees	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.
Campbell v. Monboddo's Interlocuter	1793	Succession, Debt, Aliment, Reversion, Entail, Trustees	James Campbell petitioned against Lord Monboddo's interlocutor, asking the Court to alter the ruling that the reversion of the estate's sale price must be laid out upon lands. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Chalmers v. Lord Stonefield's Interlocutor	1798	Debt, Arrestment, Creditor, Trustees, Expenses, Tack	Thomas Chalmers petitioned the Court to overturn an interlocutor issued by Lord Stonefield. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Countess of Loudon, and Others v. The Trustees on the High Roads in Ayrshire	1792	Jurisdiction, Trustees, Appeal, Sequestration, Act of Parliament, Adjudication	The Countess of Loudoun and others pursued the Trustees on the High Roads in Ayrshire regarding the proposed suppression of the road by Crawfordland-bridge, while the Trustees and associated justices of the peace defended the road's continued operation. The Trustees initially challenged the Court's jurisdiction to review their proceedings, then argued in subsequent pleadings that the road served public convenience and must be kept open. The parties exchanged answers, replies, and duplies contesting both the Court's authority to intervene and whether the road should remain open or be suppressed.
Craig v. Anderson	1776	Trustees	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.
Creditors of Currie v. Geddes	1793	Debt, Creditor, Prescription, Bill of Exchange, Trustee, Trustees	The creditors of Currie, represented by their common agent in the sale and ranking of the Estate of Newlaw, petitioned the Court to alter Lord Swinton’s interlocutor. The respondents contested the creditors’ attempt to rank debts against Currie’s estate, citing partial payments and post-prescription markings as evidence of debt continuity.
Drummonds v. Seton, et al	1794	Bankruptcy, Debt, Liferent, Creditor, Trustees, Sequestration	Robert and Henry Drummonds, creditors of Hugh Seton, disputed with Archibald Seton, Hugh’s heir-male, over whether the liferent of a dividend from Hugh’s insolvent estate belonged to the creditors at large or to Archibald as heir. The Drummonds argued that Archibald could not rank for dividend until the full £8000 marriage provision was paid, or that he could be ranked for no more than the value of his father’s liferent-right as a debt in diem, while Archibald petitioned to reclaim the dividend, contending that trustees had to be satisfied from the marriage contract debt before creditors could claim the liferent. Robert Blair separately petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor, and the parties further disputed whether Hugh’s liferent right was vested and unconditional or conditional upon payment of the marriage provision.
Eliott v. Lord Justice Clerk's Interlocutor	1797	Trustees, Debt, Succession, Hypothec, Election contest, Action	Sir William Eliott petitioned to reclaim an interlocutor of the Lord Justice Clerk denying his claim to £50:10s. paid to the writer Thomas Tod, arguing that the account was not prescribed and fell outside the scope of triennial prescription. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
General Greme's Trustees v. Thomas Bruce	1799	Aliment, Thirlage, Trustees, Arbitration, Succession, Sale	Thomas Bruce pursued General Greme's Trustees to void his purchase of the Braco estate, alleging the trustees had concealed a material alteration to the course of Keir Burn that diminished the property's value and safety. The trustees denied withholding information and argued that any damage was compensable and insufficient to annul the bargain. Bruce additionally sought authority to alter the burn's course, prompting disputes over jurisdiction and damages, while technical reports assessed flooding risks and construction costs.
J. and P. Duguid and Others v. W. Duguid and Others	1823	Succession, Aliment, Creditor, Trustees, Proof, Marriage	The children of John Duguid claimed a share in William Duguid’s estate against the trustees, who had sought exoneration after distributing legacies while residuary beneficiaries remained unidentified, filing a condescendence that opposed the executors’ objections to their evidence. The claimants’ entitlement required proof of John Duguid’s life, death, and family in America, leading to the granting of commissions for taking evidence abroad, which the respondents moved to recall or restrict to major American cities while seeking permission to participate. Proof was subsequently taken abroad regarding John Duguid’s circumstances and the claimants’ right to the estate.
Magistrates and Town-Council of Paisley v. M'Dowal et al	1792	Trustees, Assignation, Burgh, Debt, Trustee, Creditor	The Magistrates and Town-Council of Paisley petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor in their action as pursuers seeking indemnity for road repairs executed under the 1753 turnpike act. The defenders William M'Dowal, George Houston, Robert Fulton, Robert Corse, Boyd Porterfield, Boyd Alexander, Archibald Speirs, and the assignees to the tolls answered the petition, resisting the magistrates' request for alteration of the court's prior order.
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.
Sir William Eliott v. George and Thomas Currie	1796	Lease, Tack, Rent, Trustees, Entail, Succession	Sir William Eliott of Stobs, Baronet, pursued George and Thomas Currie to determine whether an heir of entail could grant a lease at a diminished rent in consideration of a grassum. Eliott maintained that such a lease was prohibited, while George Currie argued that the entail's silence on the letting of leases permitted him to enter a lease below the former rental. After the court pronounced an interlocutor, Eliott presented a reclaiming petition asking the Court to alter that decision.
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.
Trustees upon the Berwickshire Turnpike Roads v. Mayor, Bailies, and Burgesses of the Borough of Berwick	1793	Trustees, Thirlage, Mala Fides, Statute, Interdict, Act of Parliament	The Trustees upon the Berwickshire Turnpike Roads defended the placement of a toll-bar on the Eyemouth road against the Mayor, Bailies, and Burgesses of the Borough of Berwick, who sought suspension of the tolls under a 1793 turnpike act. The Corporation argued that the trustees had violated the statute by situating the gate closer to Eyemouth than to Berwick, thereby creating unequal distances prohibited by the act. The Trustees maintained that the gate was properly positioned as near as may be to the required distance from Berwick and that the Corporation's bill of suspension lacked legal foundation.
William Yeats v. Alexander Thomson and Others	1829	Reduction, Creditor, Trust, Expenses, Trustees, Trustee	William Yeats pursued Alexander Thomson and others to reduce a pretended will dated 1 April 1829. In July 1832, Yeats and James Wilson presented a reclaiming note asking the Court to recall Lord Moncreiff's interlocutor and reduce the defenders' liability.
Young v. Soutar	1802	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.