Legal Subject: Bankruptcy

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, Debt, Bankruptcy, Arrestment, Possession, Deed 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.
Addis v. Shaw 1788 Debt, Bankruptcy, Aliment, Arrestment, Sequestration, Trustee George and Henry Addis, creditors of Angus Shaw, pursued Shaw and Alexander Macpherson, trustee, reporting on new production and a minute required by the Court. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Air v. Johnston 1786 Debt, Bankruptcy, Fraud, Creditor, Disposition, Infeftment William Air, merchant in Coldstream and trustee for the creditors of Robert Johnston, baker and feuar there, petitioned to alter the Lord Ordinary’s interlocutor, citing that a heritable bond held by Thomas Johnston of Templehall was invalid under the Act of 1696. Johnston answered, defending his heritable security against the trustee’s claim that it was liable to be set aside.
Alexander Irvine v. George Earl and others 1769 Debt, Succession, Adjudication, Entail, Bankruptcy, Liferent Alexander Irvine of Drum, represented by his curators, pursued George Earl of Aberdeen, Mrs. Margaret Duff of Culter, and Alexander Udney of Udny, her husband, for an order to produce writs and deeds. The defenders filed answers to the petition in which they responded to the pursuer's demand for production.
Alexander Melvil v. James Barclay 1777 Currente Termino, Ranking of Creditors, Arrestment, Void Poinding, Debt, Bankruptcy This case concerns a competition between Alexander Melvil and the other creditors of James Davie, brewer in Cupar, whose affairs went into disorder in the summer of 1775. Davie's moveable effects were sold by public roup (auction) that September, under the authority of the Sheriff of Fife. Alexander Melvil had previously executed a void poinding on these effects and entered a claim to them on this basis, which the Sheriff rejected. After the poinding was carried out by Robert Stark, the sequestrator, Melvil contested the goods once again. On August 5, 1777, Lord Braxfield found Melvil's claims to the goods preferable to Davie's other creditors and servant's wages. The other creditors of Davie then petitioned the Court to review Braxfield's interlocutors. In addition to asking the court to deny Melvil's claim, they also argued that the wages of James Barclay, late servant to James Davie, formed a disadvantage case, and should be given preference. The Court ruled that wages were to be considered privileged debts, and preferable to Melvil's claim.
Alexanders vs. Gordons 1773 Copartnership, Debt, Aliment, Arrestment, Sequestration, Bankruptcy This case involved a copartnery formed by members of the Alexander family and members of the Gordon family. The purpose of the copartnery was to manufacture dye using a method developed by George Gordon. After pursuing this business for a number of years, the Alexanders alleged that they had become substantial creditors of the copartnery. Accordingly, the Alexanders brought actions in Scottish court and eventually obtained a writ from the Court of King’s Bench in England. They also sought to dissolve the copartnery. In response, the Gordons raised an action for damages incurred as a result of the allegedly illegal proceedings instigated by the Alexanders; the Gordons also sought sums allegedly due to them in connection with the copartnery. As a result of this suit, the Gordons obtained an inhibition against the Alexanders. Robert and William Alexander petitioned the court to recall the inhibition, and later asked the court to sequester the assets of the copartnery.
Allan v. Surtees, Burdon, and Embleton 1806 Debt, Bankruptcy, Bill of Exchange, Sequestration, Prescription, Usury The executors of William Walker, Surtees, Burdon, and Embleton, pursued Robert Allan, a banker in Edinburgh, to recover statutory penalties for usurious transactions he had conducted with Sinclair and Williamson. Allan defended the action on the grounds that the claim was barred by prescription and failed to satisfy statutory requirements.
Archer v. Donaldson 1793 Debt, Cautioner, Poinding, Sequestration, Bankruptcy, Aliment Andrew Archer and Margaret Low petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor that had assoilzied them from a process of reduction. On the same day, David Guthrie, James Ker, and others, trustees for the creditors of William Fullarton, likewise petitioned the Court to alter the same interlocutor.
Archer v. Lord Eskgrove's Interlocutor 1793 Cautioner, Creditor, Reduction, Interlocutor, Succession, Bankruptcy
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.
Baillie v. Eskgrove's Interlocutor 1795 Bankruptcy, Cautioner, Succession, Prescription, Trustee, Diligence Baillie, as petitioners, challenged Eskgrove’s interlocutor rejecting their defense that a 1785 judicial bond was exempt from the 1695 Act’s seven-year limit by prescription. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Baines v. Turnbull 1794 Debt, Bill of Exchange, Creditor, Bankruptcy, Interest, Factor Baines, the suspender, argued against Turnbull that he was not liable for bills dishonoured through no fault of his own. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Baird v. Allan and Steuart 1793 Debt, Bankruptcy, Cautioner, Bill of Exchange, Interlocutor, Reduction Respondents, Messrs Allan & Steuart, Bankers in Edinburgh, ask the court to consider 1. Competency of the appeal and 2. Merits of the question. This case was in litigation for almost a decade leading up to this appeal. In 1783, Mr. Moffat, grazier in Portsburgh, bought a parcel of cattle from Mr. Guild with a bill of 150 £ sterling, payable in three months. Mr. Guild brought the bill to Respondents, Messrs Allan & Steuart, Bankers in Edinburgh. Respondents discounted the bill, after Mr. Moffat swore to its validity. Petitioner John Baird and Mr. John Newlands were Cautioners for Mr. Moffat. When the bill became due, Mr. Moffat refused to pay, alleging the Guilds had forged copies and discounted bills at other banks, bringing the sum of money owed to well over the original 150 £ sterling. Mr. Moffat later died, bankrupt, before the valid bill was ever found. The case was heard before Lord Justice Clerk Glenlee in 1785, Lord Stonefield Ordinary in 1792, Lord Ankerville in 1790, Lord Dreghorn and Lord Abercromby in 1792. Despite multiple judgments for Messrs Allan & Steuart, Mr. Baird still challenges the validity of the bill, and appeals the judgments against him as cautioner on the bill.
Ballingall v. Ogilvie 1769 Debt, Adjudication, Inhibition, Bankruptcy, Improbation, Succession John Ballingall, Writer in Dundee, pursued John Ogilvie of Rochelhill, objecting to an inhibition and minute of sale. Ogilvie answered the petition, and subsequently submitted a condescendence accounting for debt and expenses while claiming to investigate Ballingall's payment.
Belchier v. Palmer 1776 Debt, Estate, Adjudication, Bankruptcy, Liferent, Succession In 1759, William Belchier purchased the estate of Grange in Scotland. Belchier died without children, leaving his estate to his older brother, John Belchier, in liferent and to his nephew, James-William Belchier, in fee. Several creditors of the decedent William Belchier brought actions of constitution and adjudication against his estate. Defenders Charlton Palmer and William Walker, creditors of William Belchier, sought a sale of William Belchier's estate and a ranking of the creditors. (The defenders mistakenly brought the action only against the liferenter, John Belchier, but later amended the action to include the apparent heir, James-William Belchier.) To expedite the process and reserve some of the estate for themselves, the pursuers also brought an action for the sale and ranking of the estate. This led to a dispute concerning which action—the creditors' or the apparent heirs'—should proceed.
Bell v. Rutherford 1793 Debt, Lease, Tack, Bankruptcy, Aliment, Arrestment Suit over fees for repairs of houses on the lands of Scraesburgh, part of the estate of Hunthill. In 1787, James Bell (Petitioner) signed a tack to lease the lands in Scraesburgh from Captain Rutherford (Defender/respondent). He signed a clause which stipulated that he accepted the houses “in a habitable and tenantable condition” as they were left by Robert Dickieson, the previous tenant. Mr. Bell argues that this clause was fraudulent because Mr. Dickieson did not leave the homes in a habitable condition. Bell received a judgment against Mr. Dickieson to pay for the repairs, but Dickieson went bankrupt, Dickieson’s trustees refused to pay, and the houses remained in disrepair for three years. In February, 1790, Captain Rutherford sold his estate to Benjamin Bell, who then sued James Bell for the condition of the houses. James Bell sued to hold Captain Rutherford liable for the repairs. In 1792, Lord Dunsinnan found for defender, and James Bell appeals.
Black v. Allason 1788 Bankruptcy, Debt, Creditor, Disposition, Reduction, Sasine William Black, carrier and portioner in Falkirk and pursuer, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor against defender Allason. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Caddel & Creditors of Niblie v. Lord Dunsinnan's Interlocutor 1793 Debt, Bankruptcy, Aliment, Sequestration, Trustee, Contract of marriage Caddel and the creditors of Peter Niblie at Buxley petitioned the Court to alter Lord Dunsinnan's interlocutor sustaining Mrs Niblie's vote as a creditor entitled to elect a trustee. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Cairns v. Common Agent in Ranking of Newlaw 1791 Debt, Interest, Bankruptcy, Sale, Cautioner, Agent Thomas Cairns of Dundrenan, Esquire, petitioned the Court against the Common Agent in Ranking of Newlaw. He sought exoneration from the price of lots 1st and 7th of the estate of the deceased David Currie and delivery up of the bond.
Campbell and Others, posterior Adjudgers v. The Common Agent for the Postponed Creditors in the Ranking of the Creditors of Charles Maclean of Kinlochaline 1801 Adjudication, Bankruptcy, Creditor, Debt, Statute, Decree of adjudication The creditors of Lieutenant-Colonel Charles Maclean, of Kinlochaline, proceeded to attach his estate. One adjudication was initiated by George Andrew; a subsequent adjudication was initiated by Henry Butter of Pitlochry. Additional creditors were conjoined in both Mr. Andrew’s proceeding and Mr. Butter’s. However, the common agent objected that the bankrupt act only authorized creditors to be conjoined in the first adjudication. After some creditors argued that Mr. Andrew’s adjudication not actually the first, an additional objection was raised to the conjoined creditors in that proceeding.
Campbells v. Macneil 1798 Debt, Prescription, Execution, Bankruptcy, Oath, Citation Colin Campbell and Duncan Campbell junior, as trustees on the sequestrated estate of Alexander M'Corquodale, pursued John Macneil of Gigha to alter an interlocutor of Lord Armadale regarding an account libelled against him. Macneil answered, pleading that the account was prescribed and the execution false. The parties thereafter debated the proper interpretation of Macneil's oath and the validity of the citation.
Clifford and Sons v. Mosman 1772 Poinding, Arrestment, Ranking of Creditors, Debt, Bankruptcy, Aliment John Syme and Son, merchants in Leith, owed money to Clifford and Son, pursuer, merchants in Amsterdam. Due to the nature of the transaction, the money was required to pass through the hands of William Hogg and Son, merchants in Edinburgh. (In the transaction, another person, Archibald Maclean, advanced money to William Hogg and Son, which they in turn gave to John Syme and Son. McLean was then reimbursed by Clifford and Son). William Hogg and Son subsequently encounter financial problems, which raised the possibility that its creditors would to collect the money. Clifford and Son sought to avoid this possibility. Hugh Mosman, a writer in Edinburgh and creditor of William Hogg and Son, claimed an interest in the payment from John Syme and Son to William Hogg and Son. Clifford and Son disputed Mosman's claim by arguing that they were entitled to the payment because they provided the funds in the first place.
Coalston v. Stewart 1770 Debt, Bankruptcy, Sequestration, Jurisdiction, Interlocutor, Promissory note Pursuer Jean Coalston and her husband Patrick Walker petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Cockburn v. Partners of Douglas, Heron & Co 1780 Copartnership, Debt, Sequestration, Mala Fides, Bankruptcy, Aliment This case was about liability for a share of the failed partnership of Douglas, Heron, and Company. The pursuers, a group of the company’s partners, alleged that the disputed share belonged to Archibald Cockburn of Cockpen, who was both a stockholder and a director of the company. Cockburn claimed that he had acquired the share on behalf of the company, as part of an effort to prop up its stock price. However, the partners argued that as a director, Cockburn did not have the power to make such a purchase, and that even if he did, that power was not exercised properly.
Creditors for William Hunter v. David Armstrong and William Johnstone 1778 Bankruptcy, Creditor, Debt, Aliment, Fraud, Arrestment Creditors of the bankrupt William Hunter, joined by His Majesty’s Advocate, pursued David Armstrong, advocate, and William Johnstone, writer to the signet, as art and part guilty of Hunter’s fraudulent bankruptcy and the concealment of his effects following Hunter’s flight from Scotland in 1777. The pursuers alleged that the defenders had assisted in secret transactions and the hiding of assets to the prejudice of creditors, while Armstrong and Johnston denied complicity, maintaining they had acted on counsel and in good faith. The litigation proceeded through mutual condescendences, answers denying fraud, and repeated petitions and reclaiming petitions concerning the relevancy of proof and the Court’s interlocutors.
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 Dunbar v. Grant 1793 Bankruptcy, Debt, Creditor, Adjudication, Reduction, Arrestment Alexander Penrose Cuming and other creditors of Thomas Dunbar of Westfield had obtained an interlocutor voiding, under the 1621 Act, a bond of corroboration granted by the bankrupt to Sir James Grant of Grant, Baronet, as a fraudulent preference. Grant petitioned for reconsideration, contending the bond was merely a lawful acknowledgment of debt and not a preference. The creditors answered, defending the interlocutor and responding to Grant's claims regarding the validity of the instrument.
Creditors of Hay v. Fleming 1793 Debt, Creditor, Adjudication, Bill of Exchange, Interlocutor, Bankruptcy James Fleming, defender in the action by the creditors of Hay, petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor that had excluded him from an adjudication upon the debtor’s Scottish property, maintaining that his claim was liquidated by bill and sufficiently authenticated by protest and affidavit notwithstanding the original instrument’s absence abroad. He sought to overturn the Inner-House ruling and obtain remit to the Lord Ordinary to lead further proof of his debt’s verity.
Cunninghames v. Dougal 1775 Society, Partnership, Debt, Bankruptcy, Succession, Creditor Desiring to engage in the Maryland tobacco trade, several merchants formed a partnership known as Alexander Cunninghame and Company. These merchants included Alexander Cunninghame, the firm’s managing partner, and James Dougal, the eventual pursuer in this case. After Cunninghame died in December of 1772, a dispute arose over the appropriate treatment of his shares under the partnership agreement. Cunninghame’s heirs (defenders Elizabeth and Barbara Cunninghame) sought to withdraw his shares based on the firm’s most recent balance, which had been completed in July of 1772. However, James Dougal claimed that the heirs were only entitled to any proceeds available after discharge of the firm’s debts. Two factual circumstances colored the parties’ arguments. First, one of the firm’s tobacco stores had been destroyed by fire in April of 1772, but the loss was not included in the July balance. Second, also in 1772, the firm’s factors in America purchased tobacco at a price that could not be recovered in the European market, resulting in a substantial loss. Case documents include correspondence between the firm’s Glasgow partners and its factors in America. (The firm continued under the management of Alexander’s brother William Cunninghame, and after assuming Robert Findlay as a new partner, took the name of Cunninghame Findlay and Company. It went on to became a significant player in the tobacco trade.)
Curtis, et al. v. Chippendale 1794 Bankruptcy, Debt, Sequestration, Creditor, Compensation, Bill of Exchange William Curtis, Ebenezer Maitland, and John Newman Caussmaker petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor regarding Edward Chippendale's claim as trustee on the sequestrated estate of William Macalpin and Company. The parties disputed whether Scottish law on compensation ought to be altered to conform to English practice, with the respondent defending the established Scottish doctrine and the petitioners arguing that Chippendale's claim was not well founded under that law.
Donald McDonald v. His Creditors 1780 Debt, Bankruptcy, Aliment, Sequestration, Arrestment, Creditor Documents are available. Full description in progress.
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.
Douglas, Heron, and Company v. Fisher 1784 Ranking of Creditors, Bankruptcy, Aliment, Infeftment, Creditor, Debt This case concerned the ranking and sale of the estate of Alexander Campbell of Raschoilley. In that ranking and sale, creditors Douglas, Heron, and Company objected to claims made by Jean Fisher and Barbara Campbell, Alexander’s mother and sister, respectively. In particular, the objectors argued that Jean and Barbara were not entitled to payment on bonds left to them by Alexander’s father, James Campbell, because the women had already obtained the benefits of residing with Alexander for a period of time. The petitioners also made a number of smaller objections.
Dover v. Forsyth 1784 Property, Sale, Debt, Bankruptcy, Sequestration, Possession Agnes Dover, pursuer, alleged that she had made a verbal agreement with Thomas Forsyth regarding a parcel in the village of Glenluce. Under this agreement, Dover would transfer her right to the parcel in exchange for a sale price and payment of a feu duty associated with the property. According to Dover, Forsyth paid part of the sale price and began building a house on the parcel, but he became bankrupt before the house was completed; Forsyth failed to pay the balance of the price or the feu duty. Dover sued Forsyth to recover either the money Forsyth allegedly owed her or, in the alternative, possession of the parcel. In response, the factor on Forsyth’s sequestrated estate argued that Dover should be required to pay for the improvements Forsyth made to the property.
Drummond and Drummond, et al v. Barton, et al. 1793 Bankruptcy, Debt, Ranking of Creditors, Sequestration, Trustee, Creditor The pursuers, as common agent and creditors of Hugh Seton, argued against Barton, et al that company-creditors who drew dividends in France must communicate those sums before ranking on Seton’s Scottish funds. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
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.
Duncan Davidson and Charles Graham v. John Fraser and his Attornies 1798 Bankruptcy, Debt, Arrestment, Creditor, Jurisdiction, Adjudication Duncan Davidson and Charles Graham challenged an interlocutor dismissing their bond claim against George Gun Munro, contending that an English bankruptcy commission had not transferred their debt to assignees for enforcement in Scotland. They subsequently answered a petition by John Fraser, responding to the Court's interlocutor on questions of creditor ranking and the validity of diligence.
Dunlop, and Other Trustees of Carlyle and Co v. Spiers and Others 1775 Debt, Ranking of Creditors, Sequestration, Creditor, Bankruptcy, Trustee This case was about the ability of creditors to recover debts from an individual member of a partnership. The debtor in question, James Dunlop, was a partner in John Carlyle and Company. After Carlyle and Company failed, trustees were appointed to represent two separate but related interests: the partnership itself (for the purpose of unwinding the firm) and the partnership’s creditors. These trustees lodged two types of claims with the trustees of James Dunlop, who had also become insolvent. First, on behalf of the partnership, the trustees pursued claims for debts owed by Dunlop to the firm. Second, on behalf of the firm’s creditors, they claimed that Dunlop was personally liable for the firm’s debts. When Dunlop’s trustees refused these claims, the Carlyle trustees sued. Dunlop’s trustees, as defenders, argued that the pursuers could not be ranked on Dunlop’s estate for both categories of debt.
Dunmore v. Trustee for Buchanans 1796 Bankruptcy, Sequestration, Contract, Debt, Creditor, Trustee Robert Dunmore, Esq. petitioned the Court of Session to alter a recent interlocutor pronounced in his litigation against the Trustee for Buchanans. He submitted an initial petition on 15 February 1797 seeking this relief, and subsequently presented an additional petition on 4 March 1797 reiterating his request that the Court modify its order.
Earl of Lauderdale v. George Inglis of Reidhall 1764 Prescription, Teinds, Tack, Inhibition, Adjudication, Bankruptcy James Earl of Lauderdale pursued George Inglis of Reidhall for the teinds of Reidball, asserting title by inheritance and inhibition and denying the defender’s claims of sale and prescription. Inglis defended his right, contending that his prescription remained valid and unbroken by the inhibitions relied upon by the pursuer. The Earl then petitioned to alter the court’s interlocutor, urging that prior inhibitions and judicial processes barred the defender’s prescriptive claim, and Inglis answered by maintaining his prescriptive title to the tithes.
Eden, et al. v. Anstruther, et al 1792 Debt, Cautioner, Creditor, Bankruptcy, Credit, Interlocutor Messrs Eden, Ridley, and Co. pursued Sir John Anstruther, Dr Steuart Threipland, George Oswald, and the representatives of John Mackay for £2,000 under bonds of credit granted in 1776. The defenders denied liability, Anstruther contending that his bond was never operated upon by Robert Fall individually and that no money had been drawn under it, while Threipland, Oswald, and Mackay asserted that no account had been opened on their bond and that the claim exceeded its scope. The litigation involved petitions to alter interlocutors and to remit to the Lord Ordinary, together with arguments that the formation of a new copartnery following Charles Fall's death rendered prior interlocutors open to reconsideration and requests to lodge replies regarding cash-account practice.
Eden, Ridley, and Company v. Threipland, et al 1798 Debt, Bankruptcy, Cautioner, Interest, Creditor, Interlocutor Eden, Ridley, and Company, as chargers, sought enforcement of a bond to recover interest calculated on each individual advance, disputing the position of Dr Stewart Threipland of Fingask and George Oswald of Auchincruive, as suspenders, that liability extended only to principal and interest accruing from the date of bankruptcy. The suspenders maintained that the chargers' demand for additional interest ran contrary to prior interlocutors and established accounting practices.
Edie and Laird, Petitioners v. 1797 Debt, Adjudication, Bankruptcy, Succession, Ranking of Creditors, Contract Petitioners Messrs Edie and Laird, merchants in London, asked the Court to alter Lord Craig's interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Faculty of Advocates v. Rae 1832 Bankruptcy, Debt, Fraud, Creditor, Arrestment, Sequestration The Dean and Faculty of Advocates opposed William Rae's admission to the Faculty on Trial, arguing that he should not be admitted to the Office of Advocate notwithstanding a remit previously granted in his favor. Rae answered the Faculty's allegations, defending his qualifications and right to admission against their opposition.
Fergusson v. Mosman, et al 1796 Debt, Teinds, Creditor, Bankruptcy, Roup, Stipend William Fergusson sought abatement of a retained sum from the sale of the Arrochar estate on the ground that unvalued teinds had been evicted following the purchase, arguing that this undisclosed burden warranted equitable relief. Hugh Mosman and John Anderson, common agents for the Macfarlan creditors, answered, asserting that the teinds had been exhausted and that no deduction from the price was therefore due. The dispute turned on whether the post-sale eviction of unvalued teinds entitled the purchaser to abatement where the burden had not been disclosed, or whether the exhaustion of those teinds precluded such relief.
Ferrier v. Grant, and Others 1780 Trustee, Ranking and Sale, Debt, Adjudication, Bankruptcy, Creditor 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.
Forbes and Others v. Forrester & co 1794 Bankruptcy, Debt, Trustee, Creditor, Sequestration, Factor Sir William Forbes and others, as pursuers, sought to establish Alexander Nairne as the proper trustee for the sequestrated estate of Peter Forrester and Company, while the creditors of that estate contended that Robert Forrester should be confirmed as trustee under the statute governing sequestrated estates. The parties presented competing memorials advancing their respective candidates for the office.
Francis Garbet and Company v. Their Creditors 1772 Bankruptcy, Sequestration, Estate, Copartnership, Diligence Francis Garbet, Charles Gascoigne, and Peter Capper entered into a partnership under the name Francis Garbet and Company. The partnership was in the business of conveying goods to and from London and other places along the coast of England. Due to financial difficulty, Gascoigne applied to the court to sequester the whole personal estate belonging to the partners and to appoint a factor to manage the partnership's property so that timely payments could be made to the partnership's creditors. George Home was appointed factor on the sequestration. Gascoigne then sought to withdraw or amend the application by claiming that he was unaware of the effect of this sequestration under Scots law, having received his formal education and training in England. Under the law of Scotland, creditors of a company can claim not only the company's property, but the personal property of the individual partners as well. Under the law of England, in contrast, creditors of a company can only draw on the personal property of the individual partners after private creditors of the individual partners have been satisfied. The partners of Francis Garbet and Company sought to sequester the partnership's estate only, not the individual estates of the partners.
Fraser, et al v. Sprott 1796 Common Law, Gambling, Interdict, Bankruptcy, Sequestration, Creditor Patrick Frazer, Walter Berry, and Henry Farquharson pursued a process to remit a Magistrates' interdict against their private lottery, arguing that such lotteries were not prohibited by statute or common law. The respondent Sprott opposed the remit, contending that private lotteries constituted unlawful gaming and were injurious to public order and fair trade. The dispute centered on whether private lotteries were legally permissible or prohibited as harmful to the public.
Gelly and Campbell v. Campbell 1778 Heir and Executor, Debt, Aliment, Succession, Creditor, Bankruptcy Alexander Campbell died intestate on December 9, 1769. After his death, an unsigned note was found among his effects, which expressed his intentions regarding the settlement of his estate. His eldest son, John, agreed to execute the terms of this settlement, which bequeathed £600 each on two of his daughters, Isabel and Margaret, who were at the time unmarried. Several years later, after both daughters had married, their husbands brought action against John Campbell for negligence in managing his father's estate. They requested that the estate be placed in the hands of an executor. One of their grievances concerned a three-acre plot in the Broomielaw, which Campbell had purchased from the estate for the price of £50. The pursuers stated that Campbell's unwillingness to grant them this land against their claim of £1200 was evidence that he had purposefully misrepresented its value. The case came before Lord Auchinleck, who authorized the pursuers to name an alternate executor. John Campbell then petitioned the Court to review this interlocutor, stating that the impatience of his brothers-in-law was a result of their ignorance of commercial matters. The pursuers responded that the eight-years delay in the settlement of the estate was in fact the result of gross negligence on his part.

Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 1418)