AI-transcribed

Set-off.

Definition source
AI-generated
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: Compensation

Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
Alexander-Charles Maitland, & Others v. Dame Helen Maitland Gibson, & Spouse 1830 Compensation, Security, Succession, Debt, Tailzie, Entail Alexander-Charles Maitland and other heirs of entail pursued Dame Helen Maitland Gibson and her spouse regarding £7000 paid by a canal company for consent to route a canal through the entailed estate. The pursuers sought to have the sum paid into a bank for lawful investment under the 1827 Act, asserting it was compensation for permanent damage belonging to the entail, while the defenders answered that it represented merely the value of the land and payment for temporary inconvenience. The court found that the defenders must compensate the heirs for the permanent damage sustained by the estate from the canal deviation, with the compensation to be paid from the £7000 received for the consent.
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.
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.
Greenock Rope-Work Company v Donald, Donald, and Company 1772 Partnership, Dissolution, Debt, Company, Sasine, Compensation The Greenock Ropework Company was a partnership formed to manufacture rope and sail-duck. Two partners, William Donald and Henry White (alternatively spelled Whyte), served as managers of the partnership. The partnership decided that only one manager was necessary, so it appointed Henry White as the sole manager of the partnership. This action offended William Donald as well as William's brother, James Donald, another partner of Greenock Ropework Company. With a strained relationship with two of its partners, William and James Donald proposed that the Company should be dissolved, which it did. The parties disputed the proper method of dissolution. To balance the books prior to dissolution, the partnership sought to collect a debt owed by James and Robert Donalds and Company (named as suspenders), the same James Donald who was a partner of the Greenock Rope partnership. Because the rope-work company furnished some goods to that company. James and Robert Donalds and Company sought to suspend the debt on the grounds that James Donald, as partner of the Greenock Ropework Company, was actually owed money in excess of the debt claimed by the partnership.
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.
Kemloe v. Dun, Reid, and Company 1767 Debt, Arrestment, Contract, Expenses, Interlocutor, Compensation In 1756, Gideon Kemloe, a merchant in Stonehaven (Stonehyve), cosigned as security on a load of cloth purchased by William Wise on credit from Dun and Company in Aberdeen. Wise could not sell the linen, and Kemloe became charged with making the payment to Dun and Company. Kemloe sought a suspension of this payment, claiming that since Dun and Company were already in debt to Wise, that debt should be settled first. Handwritten notation on case document says "refused."
M'Ghie and Attorney v. Forbes and Hay 1794 Debt, Succession, Creditor, Prescription, Possession, Compensation M'Ghie and Attorney pursued Forbes and Hay, maintaining that William M'Ghie and Jean Forbes had possessed the houses without title and that their intromissions could not be enforced against the defenders. The defenders answered that Mrs Jean Forbes, as assignee of her husband's debt, had no claim beyond her jointure, and that they as trustees were not liable for her intromissions.
Mary Muir v. Isobel Buchanan 1769 Debt, Estate, Compensation, Oath of Party, Intrinsic and Extrinsic, Aliment In connection with the marriage of James Taylor and Mary Muir, Mary’s brother James Muir agreed to pay a tocher, or dowry, of 2000 merks. The debt went unpaid for several years. However, shortly after James Muir’s death, Taylor sought payment from Muir’s widow, Isobel Buchanan, and her children. (James Taylor died during the litigation, and the case was taken up by Mary Muir acting as his executrix.) As defender, Buchanan claimed that the tocher debt was more than offset by various sums that James Muir had advanced to his sister and brother-in-law over the years. In considering the parties’ competing claims, the court addressed a number of questions about which debts could properly be used to offset each other and what evidence was competent to prove those debts. Case documents discuss various commercial pursuits by the parties, including Mary Muir.
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.
Robertson v. Robertson 1782 Compensation, Trust, Debt, Bankruptcy, Arrestment, Multiple-Poinding The trustees for the creditors of David Sibbald held an auction to sell a portion of Sibbald’s effects. At the auction, John Carnegie purchased a stack of wheat and transferred it to the petitioner, Thomas Robertson. Carnegie and Robertson did not grant a bill to the trustees for the price of the wheat, and the trustees eventually raised an action before the sheriff for payment, damages, and expenses. Robertson raised a counter-proceeding, alleging that the trustees owed him payment for certain business matters. The parties engaged in extensive litigation, leading to an order by the Lord Ordinary stating that Robertson had engaged in “manifestly improper conduct” and finding him liable for expenses. Robertson challenged this order on two grounds. First, he argued that his legal actions were justified. Second, he argued that the trustees were not competent to pursue the action because they had already been denuded of their trust. The trustees disputed these claims.
The Trustees for the Creditors of William Bogle v. John Ballantyne 1791 Bankruptcy, Debt, Arrestment, Creditor, Compensation, Trustee James Macgregor and others, as trustees for the creditors of William Bogle, late merchant in Glasgow, petitioned the Court to alter a recent interlocutor in their action against John Ballantyne, banker in Ayr, for repayment of trust stock. Ballantyne answered the petition, contesting the trustees' claim for repayment.
Walter Sloan-Laurie v. Alexander Spalding-Gordon 1779 Next of Kin, Confirmation, Compensation, Debt, Arrestment, Succession This is one of several cases litigated by the heirs of Walter Laurie of Redcastle. Laurie of Redcastle was a creditor of Robert Gordon of Shirmers. After Laurie's death, his nephew, James Laurie, assumed ownership of his uncle's moveable effects, for which he obtained partial confirmation. Thirty-five years later, after the death of James Laurie, his nephew Walter Sloan-Laurie brought action against Alexander Spalding-Gordon, the representative of the deceased Robert Gordon, for payment of the aforementioned debt. The defender, Spalding-Gordon, argued that as he had been a creditor of the late James Laurie sufficient to compensate, this debt was extinguished. The pursuer argued that because James Laurie had never been fully confirmed as an heir, the credit remained in bonis (in the goods of) Walter Laurie of Redcastle. Lord Hailes ruled in favor of the defender. The pursuer then appealed to the full court, which decided in his favor.
Watson v. Stewart 1777 Bill (Financial Instrument), Onerous Indorsation, Arrestment, Debt, Bill of Exchange, Compensation This case, which stretched from November 1776 to February 1780, concerned a bill for £14 sterling drawn by William Stevenson and accepted by James Stewart. Both parties went to elaborate lengths to disappoint the other in their attempts to recover and argue for compensation of this bill. After Stevenson endorsed the bill to James Watson, the latter allegedly secured an arrestment (detention) of Stewart's horses and chaise at the Golf House in Leith. The Court ultimately ruled in favor of Stewart, the suspender, declaring Watson, the charger, liable for expenses.
William Baxter v. Bell and Maxwell and Others 1800 Debt, Compensation, Factor, Creditor, Credit, Arrestment The defenders in this case, a group of soap and candle makers, purchased wicks from James Hutchison Jr. In turn, they sometimes sold their goods to Hutchison. Rather than paying separately for each transaction, the merchants periodically settled their accounts and paid the balance in cash or by bill. Unbeknownst to the defenders, Hutchison was selling the wicks on commission from pursuer William Baxter. When Hutchison died, Baxter sued the defenders for the price of certain wicks that they had received. However, the defenders argued that Hutchison owed them a larger sum, and that Baxter must bear the risk of misconduct by Hutchison, his consignee.
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 Maxwell v. Dougal Maxwell 1765 Debt, Cautioner, Trustee, Compensation, Creditor, Liferent William Maxwell of Nithsdale pursued Dougal Maxwell of Cowhill regarding the calculation of compensation due upon a heretable Bond. The pursuer maintained that compensation should be reckoned from the date he acquired the bond rather than from 1711, while the defender argued that the claim was unjust and incompetent. Both parties submitted memorials on 18 February 1765 setting forth their respective positions on the proper date for calculating the compensation owed.
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.

Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 195)