1795–1796
DebtCreditorAdjudicationBankruptcySequestrationTrusteeAndrew 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.AI-generated
Documents in this case (4)
- Burton — Petition, 16 Jun 1795June 16, 1795 Petition of the petitioner asking the Court to alter the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor which reduced his adjudication in totum on grounds of pluris petitio
- Alexander Burton v. Andrew M'Whinnie — Answers, 3 Sep 1795September 3, 1795 Information of the respondent, arguing that the petitioner's adjudication must be reduced in totum because the debt was substantially paid and compounded in 1784.
- Alexander Burton v. Andrew M'Whinnie — Replies, 1 Dec 1795December 1, 1795 Replies by Alexander Burton, Merchant in Wigton, to the answers for Andrew M'Whinnie, Common Agent in the Ranking of the Creditors of Alexander Hooks, defending his interest against objections of pluris…
- MacWhinnie — Duplies, 2 Jan 1796January 2, 1796 Information of the respondent, arguing that the petitioner's adjudication was not based on an innocent mistake but on improper conduct and concealment of payments.
People & places in this case
People involved
- David Agnew, of Ochiltree — Party
- Alexander Fullarton — Party
- Thomas Forsyth — Party
- Charles Hay, of Newton, Lord Newton — Advocate for Party
- David Cathcart, Lord Alloway — Advocate for Party
- Sir James Fergusson, of Kilkerran, Lord Kilkerran — Lord Ordinary
- John Swinton, Lord Swinton — Lord Ordinary
