| Drew v. Calder |
1778
|
Bill (Financial Instrument), Credit |
Thomas Calder died owing money to his brother-in-law, Charles Drew, and to Drew's brother, Robert. When Charles Drew went bankrupt, Robert Drew pursued John Calder of Davidstoun, brother of the late Thomas Calder, for sums owed. Lord Monboddo, the Lord Ordinary, ruled that John Calder was indeed liable for his brother's share of the debts, but Calder petitioned the Court of Session contesting this decision. He argued that the various bills granted by Thomas Calder to the Drew brothers were not for value received. Rather, he argued that these bills represented lines of credit that were never spent. Robert Drew answered that the bills were clearly given for value received, and that John Calder was merely trying to draw out the litigation process in order to postpone settling his brother's debts. |
| Duguid v. Hall, et al |
1788
|
Debt, Interlocutor, Credit, Oath, Caution, Contract |
James Duguid petitioned the Court to alter the Lord Ordinary’s interlocutor and suspend the letters simpliciter issued against him, challenging the enforcement of a Magistrates’ decree. John Hall, John Tenant, and William Sprott answered, asserting that the Magistrates’ decree had been properly enforced and the petitioner’s claims were groundless. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
