AI-transcribed

Assignment. In Scotland choses in action may be legally assigned. Intimation to the debtor is necessary to render an assignation valid as against third parties.

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.

Legal Subject: Assignation

Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
Anderson v. Creditors of Arnot 1792 Arrestment, Trustee, Creditor, Multiple-Poinding, Assignation, Debt Lilias Anderson, as pursuer, petitioned against an interlocutor issued by Lord Dregborn in her case against the creditors of Arnot. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Arrot v. Coulter 1792 Debt, Bankruptcy, Bill of Exchange, Sequestration, Assignation, Creditor Petition by William Coulter, trustee on the Sequestrated Estate of James Elder, objecting to an assignment by Mr. Elder to Messrs Mansfield, Ramsay, and Co., which attempted to convey certain goods sent by Mr. Elder to Mr. Thomas Brunton, Merchant in Kingston for consignment. Mr. Coulter objects on three grounds: 1. That Mr. Elder made the assignment solely to preference certain creditors, including his brother-in-law Mr. Quinn and his friend, Mr. Arrot, surgeon in Edinburgh; 2. that the conveyance was not completed as Mr. Elder never delivered the assignment to Messrs Mansfield, Ramsay, and Co.; and 3. No intimation (legal notice) of the assignation was delivered that was sufficient to divest the cedent and complete the right of the assignee in a competition with other creditors.

Summary of Facts:
In 1787, Mr. Elder obtained a Cash credit of 200 £ Sterling from Sir William Forbes, James Hunter, and Co., cautioned by Mr. Quinn/Quynne/Gwyn (his brother-in-law) and Mr. Arrot. All the money was spent.
On May 22, 1789, Mr. Elder drew upon Mr. Arrot a bill for 130 £ Sterling, which was accepted by Mr. Arrot. On May 23, Mr. Elder discounted the bill with Messrs Mansfield, Ramsay, and Co., Bankers in Edinburgh. The bill was endorsed by Mr. Andrew, writer in Edinburgh. Mr. Elder used this money to close out his cash account with Sir William Forbes and Co, the account closed on June 27, 1789. During this time, Mr. Elder wrote an assignment, dated May 22, 1789, conveying the proceeds of a parcel of goods currently held by Mr. Brunton for consignment to Messrs Mansfield, Ramsay, and Co. to satisfy the debt owed for the advancement of the bill. This assignment was never delivered, but remained with Mr. Elder.
On August 5, 1789, Mr. Elder called a meeting of his creditors. On October 7, 1789, the Sequestration was applied for and granted.
After the sequestration, on November 12, 1789, Mr. Coulter, trustee of the estate, received a letter from Messrs William Sibbald and Co., merchants in Leith, who possessed sugar and rum owned by Mr. Elder, remitted from Mr. Brunton. Mr. Arrot and Mr. Andrew, as writer and endorser respectively of Mr. Elder's debt to Messrs Mansfield, Ramsay and Co., made a claim of preference for the goods, suggesting that the assignment written by Mr. Elder conveyed these goods to Messrs Mansfield and Ramsay. The trustee, Mr. Coulter, denied these claims.
On November 29, 1791, Mr. Coulter filed a petition to the Lords of Council and Session, made by Mr. Coulter, Trustee. Lord Ordinary Henderland heard the petition on December 7, 1791, and rendered judgment for Mr. Arrot.
This appeal follows.
Bruce v. Cunynghame 1790 Disposition, Freeholder, Charter, Seisin, Sasine, Assignation James Bruce of Kinnaird petitioned the Court to expunge Sir William Augustus Cunynghame from the freeholders' roll of Stirling, alleging that Cunynghame’s qualification was nominal, fictitious, or held in confidence rather than by real right. Cunynghame answered that his freeholder qualification was genuine and supported by valid titles, a defense joined by David Cunynghame, younger of Livingstone, who asserted that the land titles were fully documented. Bruce replied and Cunynghame duplied, continuing the dispute over whether the enrollment rested on a real or merely nominal qualification.
Creditors of Angus Fisher v. The Creditors of Patrick Campbell, and Others 1778 Bonds, Debt, Cautioner, Assignation, Creditor, Bankruptcy Angus Fisher, merchant of Inveraray, borrowed some £600 sterling from the Old Ayr Bank. Captain James Campbell, Patrick Campbell of Knap, Gillies of Duchra, and Ochiltree of Lindsaig served as joint-cautioners. At the same time Angus Fisher had other outstanding debts, including one held by Mrs. Sarah Ranken. Both Captain Campbell and Mrs. Ranken were granted heritable bonds of relief over the lands of Auchindrain for payment and security. In December 1771, the Old Ayr Bank demanded repayment. Angus Fisher had died insolvent, as had Gillies of Duchra. Campbell of Knap, Ochiltree, and their creditors, gave Captain Campbell £230 each, and he then reimbursed the bank in full. All the joint-cautioners had arranged that the heritable bond held by Captain Campbell would be used to reimburse all cautioners and their creditors. Mrs. Sarah Ranken and other creditors of Angus Fisher objected to this arrangement, claiming that the income from the property should instead be used to pay other creditors who held heritable bonds against Auchindrain. In 1778 Lord Hailes pronounced that Captain Campbell's co-cautioners were indeed entitled to a residuary security from the property. Ranken and other creditors of Fisher then petitioned the Court, arguing that the heritable bond was held personally by Captain Campbell and could not be used to reimburse the other co-cautioners. The Court repelled her objection.
Creditors of Moncreiffe v. Moncreiffe 1776 Multiple-Poinding, Ranking of Creditors, Debt, Interlocutor, Assignation, Creditor Sir Thomas Moncreiffe provided £1,000 to the younger children of his son, Thomas. A dispute between Thomas' two children, William and Patrick, was resolved in the latter's favor. William then became the target of several of Patrick's creditors, who brought action for payment before Lord Elliock. Sir William Moncreiffe responded with a process of multiple-poinding (claim adjudication), which Lord Kennet transferred to the process before Lord Elliock. Moncreiffe then petitioned the Court to affirm that the ranking must be fully adjusted before he be required to make payment. Cochrane, Murdoch, and Company, creditors in the ranking, answered that the ranking was indeed concluded. They also petitioned to be ranked on and to recover expenses from the draught of John Thain, another creditor of Moncreiffe, now deceased. John Thain's widow and children then submitted answers to this petition, asking the Court to refuse Cochrane, Murdoch, & Co.'s request. See also John Thain, Advocate in Aberdeen v. Sir William Moncrief of Moncrief, a related case that came before Lord Hailes.
David and Hugh Mitchell v. William Ferguson 1779 Arrestment, Bill of Exchange, Assignation, Creditor, Disposition, Debt These case documents constitute a prelude to the reported case of David and Hugh Mitchell v. William Ferguson. In 1769, Agnes Carsan purchased a house in Ayr from William Donald. Because she believed her son-in-law to be holding money for the house on her behalf, no bills or securities were filed, and the disposition of the house was held by James Fergusson, Provost and writer in Ayr. Later William Donald became bankrupt and arrestments (securities) were laid in the hands of Carsan and Hair-Campbell. William Ferguson, claiming that he had paid Donald for the price of the house on behalf of Carsan, brought action against Carsan for either a disposition of the house or repayment. On March 3, 1779 the Court ruled that Ferguson was entitled to either the price or a disposition on the house. Donald's creditors, David and Hugh Mitchell, later brought action, in competition with Fergusson for rights to the house. On February 13, 1781 the Court determined that the infeftment (legal claim) possessed by the Mitchells was preferable to the personal right claimed by Fergusson.
David Clyne v. James Trail and David Hendersson, (Williamson's Trustees) 1830 Debt, Arrestment, Creditor, Assignation, Trustee, Sequestration David Clyne raised a summons of forthcoming against James Traill, trustee for the creditors of the late Lieutenant-Colonel Benjamin Williamson, and David Henderson, factor, to recover funds held in trust for Kenneth Fraser. Traill and Henderson defended the action on the ground that they were not in possession of the funds at the time of the arrestment. They subsequently lodged a reclaiming note asking the Court to alter the interlocutor of which they complained.
Dewar v. Howieson 1788 Aliment, Succession, Debt, Bill of Exchange, Assignation, Creditor Mrs Nisbet and her husband petitioned the Court of Session to alter the Lord Justice-Clerk's interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Douglas v. Mason 1796 Debt, Arrestment, Creditor, Assignation, Bankruptcy, Trustee Douglas petitioned the Court to alter the interlocutors of Lord Swinton Ordinary in a multiple-poinding process regarding a legacy held by a trustee. Mason argued that an arrestment laid upon the legacy was valid and took priority over an assignation made by a bankrupt son to his mother.
Earl of Rednor v. Macarthur 1791 Succession, Disposition, Trust, Debt, Assignation, Adjudication Archibald Macarthur Stewart, defender in the action by the Earl of Rednor, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Edmonstone v. Morehead 1790 Freeholder, Disposition, Teinds, Charter, Sasine, Assignation George Edmonstone, a minister, petitioned the Court to overturn the Stirlingshire freeholders' refusal to admit him to the electoral roll, while William Morehead of Herbertshire defended the decision by challenging Edmonstone's qualification. Edmonstone submitted replies and duplies addressing objections to his qualification, and his agent William Craig filed answers to Morehead's condescendence. The pleadings repeatedly referenced parallel litigation involving Edmonstone's brother Charles Edmonstone and another freeholder, Mr. Cheape.
Elliot v. M'Kay 1777 Onerous Indorsation, Debt, Bill of Exchange, Prescription, Compensation, Assignation In January 1772, Archibald Graham drew a bill upon Hugh Mackay, payable on Whitsunday of that year. According to the pursuer, David Elliot, Archibald Graham later endorsed the bill to James Campbell as compensation. This bill was then endorsed to William Graham, who later endorsed it to David Elliot. No demand was made on Mackay's bill until December 1773, 18 months after the term of payment. At this time David Elliot brought action against Hugh Mackay, who attested that he was not aware that the bill had been endorsed over, and pleaded compensation. The cause came before Lord Pitfour, who assoilzied (absolved) Mackay in February 1775. Elliot represented against this interlocutor, and the cause was remitted to Lord Auchinleck. Auchinleck reported the cause to the full court. In January 1777, the Court found compensation to be valid, and assoilzied Mackay. In a petition responding to this ruling, Elliot argued that other mercantile countries held much longer expiration dates for bills, and allowing compensation for a bill held by an onerous endorsee would be destructive for business. In July 1777, the Court agreed with the petitioner, and overturned its previous ruling.
Hall v. Creditors of Mulderg 1770 Debt, Adjudication, Aliment, Succession, Assignation, Creditor Mr. James Hall, pursuer, petitioned the Court of Session to alter its recent interlocutor in his action against the Creditors of Mulderg, defenders. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Harrisons v. Chippendale, Trustee 1792 Bankruptcy, Compensation, Creditor, Bill of Exchange, Assignation, Debt Harrisons, as assignees of Gibson and Johnson, claimed entitlement to rank on the estate of William M'Alpine and Company for the full amount of bills held as security for advances made to the firm. Edward Chippendale, trustee of the estate, argued that this claim was compensated by the value of bills which Gibson and Johnson had accepted and indorsed to M'Alpine and Company. The dispute thus turned on whether the assignees could recover the full amount of their secured debt or whether it was subject to compensation by the firm's separate claims against them.
Hay v. Thomson 1787 Debt, Creditor, Reduction, Assignation, Interlocutor, Bankruptcy John Hay, trustee for the creditors of D. Loch, petitioned the Court of Session to alter Lord Rockville’s interlocutor, arguing that a 1770 assignation was void as a fraudulent preference under the 1696 Act because it was intimated after bankruptcy and constituted a fraud against Loch’s other creditors. James Thomson and the creditors of St Clair & Co. answered, contesting the validity of the translation and assignation under the statute. Hay petitioned again to alter the court’s interlocutor, maintaining that the assignation was an illegal preference.
Inglis v. Bethune 1798 Cautioner, Debt, Assignation, Interlocutor, Bankruptcy, Action William Inglis petitioned to reverse a court’s finding that defender William Bethune’s 1786 holograph bond was mere corroboration rather than new security, seeking to hold Bethune jointly liable for half the debt. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
James Duff and William Duff v. Laurence Sutherland 1793 Arrestment, Decreet-Arbitral, Debt, Assignation, Magistrate, Sequestration James Duff in Nethertown and William Duff in Hillockhead of Glass pursued Laurence Sutherland, bailie of Elgin, for obstructing the execution of a caption and withholding consigned money and papers. The complainers asked the court to remit the bailie’s conduct, while Sutherland defended his refusal to incarcerate the debtor and retain the funds, asserting that the complaint was incompetent and that his actions were proper given the complainers’ unlawful proceedings and acquiescence in their own error. He further answered claims of damages and wrongful seizure, maintaining that his conduct had been justified under the circumstances.
John Carmichael v. Gabriel Peter 1765 Debt, Rent, Aliment, Tack, Assignation, Lease John Carmichael pursued Gabriel Peter, a baker in Edinburgh, regarding rent claimed under a tack. The Lord Ordinary having found Peter liable for the full rent, Peter petitioned the Court to alter that interlocutor on the ground that an additional rent agreement with Cundell remained unfulfilled. Carmichael answered, contending that the assignation of the tack was void because it rested upon an unenforceable verbal agreement.
John Murray v. James Scott 1794 Feu duties, Teinds, Interlocutor, Feu, Sasine, Assignation John Murray petitioned the Court of Session to alter its recent interlocutor in his action against James Scott. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Lamb, et al v. Duncan 1797 Debt, Creditor, Cessio Bonorum, Aliment, Diligence, Assignation James Lamb, John Robertson, and Alexander Orr petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Glenlee, and James Duncan answered the petition. The dispute concerned whether the Court would vary the prior order, with the petitioners seeking alteration and Duncan resisting the application.
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.
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.
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.
McFarlane v. Meadowbank's Interlocutor 1796 Debt, Creditor, Aliment, Bill of Exchange, Assignation, Oath The suspender McFarlane petitioned against an interlocutor of Lord Meadowbank, which had found the charger entitled to expenses and appointed an account thereof to be given in. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Mrs. Henderson's Trustees v. J. Tulloch and D. Ross 1832 Succession, Disposition, Trustee, Assignation, Heritor, Aliment
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.
Pringle v. Hamilton 1793 Prescription, Bill of Exchange, Debt, Oath, Action, Assignation Pringle pursued Hamilton for payment of a bill of exchange drawn by David Cathcart in 1762, while Hamilton defended on the grounds that the instrument had not been duly negotiated and that the debt was prescribed. Pringle argued that Hamilton remained liable notwithstanding the alleged defect in negotiation and that the defense of prescription was inapplicable, but Cathcart answered that the debt had been discharged by payment made by his father. Hamilton subsequently petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor.
Proctor v. Carnegy 1796 Disposition, Sasine, Charter, Infeftment, Assignation, Seisin Patrick Proctor pursued an action against Sir David Carnegie to establish the validity of a sasine, maintaining that the seisin was legally complete without a commission from Lord Strathmore and that the freeholders and Court had improperly rejected his inrolment. Carnegie defended by contending that the commission was an essential part of the title which Proctor had failed to produce to the freeholders, rendering the seisin null. The parties exchanged informations and memorials debating the necessity of the commission and the legal effect of the sasine.
Purves v. Gentle 1796 Lease, Tack, Rent, Assignation, Aliment, Debt Thomas Purves of Lochend pursued Robert Gentle regarding obligations under a lease, particularly the repair of houses and fences. Gentle petitioned the Court to alter Lord Polkemmet's interlocutor, but Purves answered that Gentle had expressly accepted all obligations of the original lease, and James Murie, tenant in Kingseat, answered regarding the rebuilding of dikes to make fences fencible. Purves subsequently petitioned to alter a further interlocutor, and Gentle answered, denying that he was bound by implied obligations and asserting that Purves misrepresented the lease terms.
Ralston v. Dreghorn's Interlocuters 1793 Debt, Creditor, Compensation, Bill of Exchange, Assignation, Interlocutor Robert Ralston, as pursuer, petitioned the court against an interlocutor issued by Lord Dreghorn. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
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.
Richardson and Tait v. Thomson 1775 Debt, Assignment, Interlocutor, Oath, Representation, Assignation David Thomson of Ingliston, defender, granted a bond to James Thomson, who conveyed shares of the bond to many different assignees. Several of these assignees made further assignments, and the pursuers, John Richardson and John Tait, came to possess a four-sixths share of the bond. Richardson and Tait sued David Thomson for payment. In the ensuing process, Thomson alleged that Tait and Richardson were merely trustees for certain assignees whom he had already paid. In response, Richardson and Tait claimed to be Thomson’s rightful creditors, having exchanged ready money for shares that the earlier assignees were unable to collect. Richardson and Tait also argued that David Thomson had missed a deadline for continuing to contest the case.
Robert Carrick v. John Carse 1777 Cautioner, Debt, Aliment, Arrestment, Sequestration, Assignation Pursuer Robert Carrick was cautioner on a bond granted by Robert Robb to John Carse, William Stirling, and George Bogle. After Robb became bankrupt, Carse demanded payment from Carrick, who complied. The next day, however, Carrick requested a refund on the grounds that he had mistakenly repaid the bond. He argued that his duty to pay was extinguished by a statute that limited the obligation of cautioners to seven years. Carse refused to provide a refund, and Carrick sued. In his defense, Carse argued that although Carrick’s legal obligation had ended, Carrick still had an equitable obligation to pay. Carse further argued that there was no excuse at law for Carrick’s erroneous payment.
Robert Wark v. William Wotherspoon 1830 Expenses, Assignation, Tack, Rent, Interlocutor, Irritancy William Wotherspoon sought suspension of a decree obtained by Robert Wark ordering him to pay £9, 13s. 5½d. and extract dues. Wotherspoon defended the suspension on the ground that an assignation of lease from Mr Young was necessary for debt recovery, while denying Wark’s allegations of arrears and encroachment. He subsequently lodged a reclaiming note asking the Court to recall the interlocutor and suspend the letters simpliciter, and obtained an additional appendix allowing him to print the defences, replies, condescendence, and answers from the inferior court process.
Shoolbred v. Lindsay 1792 Debt, Creditor, Aliment, Assignment, Assignation, Arrestment John Shoolbred, trustee for the creditors of Captain Charles Steuart Lindsay, sought to compel Lindsay to assign £40 per annum from his military half-pay pursuant to a court order. Lindsay resisted, maintaining that his half-pay was not assignable to creditors and that Shoolbred’s claim thereto was ineffectual. The case turned on whether half-pay could be made liable to the claims of creditors.
Sir Alexander Mackenzie of Gairloch v. Hector Mackenzie and His Tutor 1768 Debt, Factor, Assignation, Executor, Reduction, Disposition
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.
The Trustees of the late Robert Vans Agnew v. Mrs Frances Dunlop or Agnew & Others 1832 Debt, Succession, Disposition, Expenses, Assignation, Legacy The Trustees of the late Robert Vans Agnew maintained the validity of a disposition dated 1808 against Mrs Frances Dunlop or Agnew and others, lodging an additional appendix to their reclaiming note that asserted the deed remained binding upon the defenders. The Earl of Galloway and J. A. S. M'Kenzie subsequently reclaimed against an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Fullerton, petitioning the Court to alter that determination.
Tod v. Thomson 1792 Arrestment, Creditor, Debt, Assignment, Assignation, Witness Alexander Thomson, defender in the action raised by Tod, petitioned the Court on 2 March 1792 to alter Lord Monboddo's interlocutor against him. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
William Galdie, Factor on the Sequestrated Estate of James Anderson v. William Gray 1774 Debt, Arrestment, Sequestration, Creditor, Compensation, Assignation James Anderson formed a partnership with John Brown, Robert Carrick, and William Gray for the purpose of manufacturing linens in Glasgow. The partnership was known as Brown, Carrick, and Company. Although the firm was successful, Anderson became insolvent, and his personal estate was sequestered by the court. William Galdie was appointed factor. Partner William Gray, who was a creditor to Anderson, sought to attach Anderson’s interest in Brown, Carrick, and Company; two other creditors named Archibald and John Coates did the same. In response, the firm raised a process of multiplepoinding. In that proceeding, Gray claimed a preference, asserting that as a partner in Brown, Carrick, and Company, he had a common law right of retention with respect to Anderson’s interest. Additionally, Gray claimed a preference based on a clause in the firm’s partnership agreement. As factor, William Galdie opposed these claims, arguing that any right of retention was held by the partnership, not by the partners as individuals. Galdie further argued that the cited clause in the partnership agreement did not apply. Gray’s claims were initially rejected by the court; thus, Gray became the petitioner and Galdie the respondent in subsequent phases of litigation.
William Gilmour and Others v. William Finnie and Benjamin Greig 1832 Expenses, Assignation, Credit, Interest, Suspension, Interlocutor William Finnie and Benjamin Greig, defenders in the action raised by William Gilmour and others, presented a reclaiming note against an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Corehouse. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
William Little Gilmour v. Caroline Hunter 1799 Tack, Liferent, Lease, Succession, Heir, Assignation William Little Gilmour pursued Caroline Hunter regarding the lands of Barlaugh, seeking to void a long-term tack as violating a tailzie deed’s restriction against leasing beyond the lifetimes of the tailzie heirs, and claiming entitlement to continue in possession as lawful heir under his father’s will and by continuous possession after a thirty-eight-year lease. After an interlocutor rejected his claim to remain in possession, he petitioned for review of that decision. William Grieve, tenant of the lands, subsequently petitioned the Court to reconsider an inner-house interlocutor that had repelled his defences and decreed for his removing.
William Stewart v. Mrs. Garland or Pirie and James Pirie 1831 Succession, Liferent, Assignation, Debt, Tack, Deed William Stewart, Sheriff-Clerk of Kincardineshire, pursued Mrs. Garland or Pirie and James Pirie for multiple poinding and exoneration of debts owed to the deceased John Pirie, tenant in Cairnbeg. Stewart condescended on the fund in medio against the relict and representatives of the late tenant, and James Pirie subsequently lodged a reclaiming note against Lord Corehouse's interlocutor.
Williamson v. Saunders 1790 Debt, Trustees, Trustee, Compensation, Infeftment, Assignation Joseph Williamson junior, as pursuer, claimed against James Saunders, Writer to the Signet, who answered that Williamson's status as trustee did not amount to an onerous assignation and that prior interest claims were groundless. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
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.
Yorkston, et al. v. Grieve 1794 Deed, Witness, Testament, Succession, Assignation, Executor Yorkston and his co-petitioners pursued Grieve concerning the validity of a testamentary deed executed by the illiterate Jean Ferguson. They argued that the instrument was valid despite the notary’s docquet failing to record that it was read over to the testatrix, whereas Grieve maintained that because Ferguson could neither read nor write, the deed required to be read to her before she authorized the notary’s signature, and was void for want of that formality.
Young, and Husband v. Sinclair, et al 1796 Debt, Creditor, Assignation, Penalty, Succession, Aliment Mrs Janet Young and James Riddoch, her husband, sought recovery of the net expenses they had incurred in enforcing payment of an annuity due under a heritable bond. Mrs Janet Sinclair, her husband James Smith, William Innes, and William Innes as Administrator-in-Law resisted, contending that they ought not to be subjected to the expenses of process under a general decerniture for penalty.

Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 692)