Legal Subject: Debt

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.
A. Keltie v. R. Wilson 1827 Debt, Poinding, Sist, Inhibition, Diligence, Arrestment Andrew Keltie of Gelvan petitioned the Court against Robert Wilson, writer in Edinburgh, seeking relief from an illegal poinding executed in violation of a court-ordered stay. Keltie alleged that Wilson had poinded during a sist on a bill of suspension, breaching procedural protections and amounting to contempt of court. The litigation proceeded from an initial petition for redress to a Revised Case arguing that such poinding during suspension constituted contempt.
Abraham Delvalle, and Others v. The Creditors of the York-Buildings Company 1783 Debt, Prescription, Creditor, Sequestration, Trustee, Trust After the York Buildings Company failed, its real property in Scotland became the subject of a ranking of creditors. In this ranking, a group of creditors objected to certain claims that had been submitted. In particular, the creditors made two key objections to claims based on bonds issued by the Company. First, the creditors objected that many bonds had been cut off by the Scottish statute of limitations, or “prescription.” In response, the affected bondholders argued that the prescription should not apply because the debts were still valid in England, where they had been contracted and where the York Buildings Company and its creditors resided. Second, the creditors objected that some bonds had been issued under value and should be ranked accordingly. The affected creditors argued that the bonds were negotiable instruments, and purchasers were entitled to rely on their face value. In the course of the proceedings, both sides filed petitions with the Court of Session.
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.
Agnes Watson v. Mary Rae 1773 Bonds, Debt, Aliment, Intromission, Adjudication, Succession This case was about the ability of minors, when choosing their own curators, to agree that those curators would not be liable for omissions (as opposed to active interference with the minors’ property). Greenock merchant James Watson, the father of pursuer Agnes Watson, died leaving three minor children. The children chose several curators to manage their affairs, including James’s business partner Robert Rae. The “act of curatory” that empowered these curators included a clause absolving them of liability for omissions. After the Watson children came of age, they sued the curators for mishandling the estate. The proceeding stretched over many years, and after the curators died, Agnes Watson continued the action against their representatives. One of these representatives was defender Mary Rae, daughter of Robert, who contested a number of Agnes’s claims. In particular, Mary argued that she could not be held responsible for the curators’ failure to collect certain debts, because the act of curatory shielded the curators from liability for omissions. In response, Agnes argued that minors could not elect curators subject to such a condition.
Agnes Watson, and James Taylor, her Husband v. Agnes Mathie, and James Weir, her Husband 1775 Debts to estate, Tutors and Curators, Debt, Intromission, Aliment, Arrestment Greenock merchant James Watson, the father of pursuer Agnes Watson, died leaving three minor children. The children chose several curators to manage their affairs, including two of James’s business partners, Robert Rae and Gabriel Mathie. Robert Rae took on primary responsibility for the curatorship. After the Watson children came of age, they sued the curators for mishandling the estate. The proceeding stretched over many years, and after the curators died, Agnes Watson continued the action against their representatives; one such representative was defender Agnes Mathie, daughter of Gabriel. Agnes Mathie initially failed to participate in the case, but after being held liable in a sheriff’s judgment, she raised several defenses. First, Mathie claimed that the pursuers had orally renounced any claims against her father. Second, Mathie argued that certain sums were received by Robert Rae without the authority of a quorum, and that the other curators should not be held responsible. Finally, Mathie argued that Rae had received certain payments in his private capacity as manager of a mercantile venture with James Watson. According to Mathie, Rae had good credit, so there was no reason to punish the other curators for failing to collect what he owed to Watson. In response, Agnes Watson argued that the curators were liable for failing to exercise diligence in collecting open debts.
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.
Aitcheson v. Stalker 1777 Bill (Financial Instrument), Death - Presumption of, Mala Fides, Debt, Succession, Prescription In January 1770, Andrew Stalker accepted a bill for £42 sterling payable to his sister-in-law, Rebecca Spreull. Both of them died shortly afterward. Spreull's husband, John of Milton, sued Stalker's nephew, Samuel, for payment of this bill. The Sheriff of Lanark found Samuel Stalker liable, but around that time (March 1771) John Spreull died. The trustees of Spreull's son, who had been abroad, then obtained confirmation and charged Stalker upon the Sheriff's order. The case went dormant for several years, but in January 1777 Lord Kennet found Stalker liable. Stalker then petitioned the Court to alter this interlocutor, claiming several additional grounds of compensation. He also contended that the confirmation of John Aitcheson, the surviving trustee, was inept, for the person in whose name it was given - John Spreull, junior - had perished in a shipwreck shortly before his father's death. Furthermore, Stalker claimed that the original decreet charged on was null and void, for John Spreull, senior, had died shortly beforehand. John Aitcheson countered the suspender's various pleas of compensation, and declared that Stalker's contention regarding the death of Spreull, senior, was clearly false. He also claimed that there was no evidence that Spreull, junior, had been lost at sea, and that he was merely "abroad on business."
Alexander Bennet v. David Maxwell 1787 Tack, Arrestment, Debt, Lease, Rent, Sasine Alexander Bennet, as pursuer, challenged a tenant’s missive as invalid for lacking formality or stamp, and David Maxwell, as defender, responded asserting the missive’s validity under pacta esse servanda. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Alexander Bruce v. The Representatives of John Stein 1792 Succession, Debt, Creditor, Aliment, Tack, Cautioner Alexander Bruce pursued the representatives of John Stein for a debt arising from a 1770 bond involving Robert Stein, with trustees and spouses' portions also forming part of the dispute. The defenders resisted the action, leading Bruce and his trustee Alexander Abercromby to argue that the defenders, as representatives of the deceased John Stein, remained liable for the bond obligation.
Alexander Campbell v. John Campbell 1772 Slavery and enslaved people, West Indies and Atlantic trade, Debt, Bill of Exchange, Assignment, Interlocutor Alexander Campbell in Balole, Islay, pursued John Campbell, Tackman of Dunloskin, alleging forgery and improper bond cancellation, to which John Campbell filed answers. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Alexander Cuming v. Alexander Macdonald, Esq. 1801 Minor, Debt, Aliment, Arrestment, Succession, Creditor In a process of ranking and sale, Alexander Cuming sought to be ranked on a bill that was signed by the decedent, James Macdonald, three months before James came of age. The common agent raised an objection based on James's minority, and the Lord Ordinary sustained it. Cuming sought further review, making several arguments for enforcing the bill: (1) the funds were advanced for James's benefit, (2) James accepted the bill while exercising a profession, and (3) James's father joined in accepting the bill.
Alexander Dick Junior v. William Richardson 1838 Prescription, Interlocutor, Agent, Witness, Debt, Process Alexander Dick Junior sought suspension of a Glasgow magistrates' decree enforcing payment of £26:15:2 against him, alleging procedural and evidentiary flaws in the underlying action and disputing the law account charges, including a contested item dated April 1830. The litigation proceeded with challenges regarding procedural irregularities in proof, culminating in the Court's rejection of pleas of prescription and incompetence of bill, upholding the account as valid and awarding expenses against Dick as suspender. Dick subsequently petitioned to suspend William Richardson concerning disputed authorship and possession of legal documents arising from prior Richardson & Porter cases.
Alexander Duncan, and Others v. The Magistrates of Aberdeen 1783 Debt, Adjudication, Tax, Interlocutor, Oath, Process The pursuers challenged a regulation passed by the magistrates of Aberdeen, which raised the dues required to become a burgess.
Alexander Fyffe v. James John Fraser 1832 Debt, Aliment, Arrestment, Succession, Trust, Trustees Dr Alexander Fyffe, surgeon in Haddington and pursuer, presented a reclaiming note asking the Court to alter the interlocutor and remit the bill for suspension and interdict in his case against James John Fraser, defender. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Alexander Gordon of Culvenan, and Jean Macculloch, Elder Daughter of John Macculloch, Elder of Barholm v. James Dewar of Vogrie, John Macculloch Elder, and John Macculloch Younger, of Barholm 1771 Debt, Adjudication, Tailzie, Entail, Succession, Liferent John Macculloch's estate, which encompassed a considerable land-estate in the stewarty of Kirkcudbright and shire of Wigtown, was subject to a settlement containing strict prohibitive, irritant, and resolutive clauses. This case is a dispute over inheritance claims following Macculloch's death.
Alexander Irvine of Drum v. The Earl of Aberdeen, &c 1772 Debt, Estate, Adjudication, Tailzie, Entail, Aliment The estate of Alexander Irvine of Drum was heavily burdened with debts at the time of his death. The estate went through a series of family members. Through this process, some debts were relieved but others were added. The estate was sold in 1736 to cover the debts. A small part of the estate was set aside for the Irvine family, but most of the estate went to the Earl of Aberdeen or Patrick Duff of Premnay. After John Irvine of Drum's death in 1737, the successor to the estate, Alexander Irvine of Crimond, mounted a legal challenge to the settlement of the estate. The pursuer in the present case was Alexander Irvine of Drum, grandson of Alexander Irvine of Drum. The 3rd Earl of Aberdeen, taking up a cause inherited from his father, and Patrick Duff argued that the Irvine family has no valid claims against them.
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 Kinloch and Others v. James Rocheid 1799 Debt, Aliment, Succession, Prescription, Teinds, Creditor Elizabeth Rocheid executed a strict entail of her one-half share of Inverleith and Darnchester. She conveyed the rest of her estate to the heirs of entail, conditioned on their paying Elizabeth’s debts and legacies, and using any surplus to purchase and entail the remainder of Inverleith and Darnchester. Alexander Kinloch, the institute, and James Rocheid, his son (represented by tutors), paid Elizabeth's debts and legacies, but they did not purchase the lands specified in Elizabeth’s deed. The next substitutes brought an action against James, seeking an accounting and enforcement of the deed. James responded that because Elizabeth had died more than forty years earlier, the action was barred by the negative prescription. Case documents refer to additional family members and other individuals. They also describe transactions relating to the creation of the South Bridge.
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.
Alexander Mudie v. John Ouchterlony 1766 Mandate, Debt, Rent, Lease, Arrestment, Proof Pursuer Alexander Mudie claimed that Alexander Ouchterlony had verbally commissioned him to purchase a tenement in Arbroath without disclosing that Oucterlony was his principal. Mudie was sued in connection with the deal and, in turn, raised an action against Ouchterlony; however, Ouchterlony died while the litigation was pending. Mudie then renewed the process against Ouchterlony’s representatives. They denied any knowledge of the commission and argued that it could only be proved by a writing.
Alexander Pagan and James Hunter v. Alexander Wylie 1792 Debt, Creditor, Bill of Exchange, Suspension, Aliment, Fraud Alexander Pagan and James Hunter, as suspenders, resisted Alexander Wylie’s claim upon a bill of exchange that had been altered from £8 to £84 after execution. Wylie, agent for the Paisley Union Bank, had discounted the bill for the higher amount and argued that the suspenders remained liable for the altered sum, while Pagan and Hunter maintained that such a material change precluded any charge against the original acceptor and indorser. The litigation centered on whether parties to a bill could be held responsible for a sum materially increased after the instrument had been signed.
Alexander Spiers and Others v. Thomas Dunlop and Others 1778 Spendthrift provision, Debt, Aliment, Succession, Creditor, Disposition This case was about a father’s right to impose restrictions on his son’s inheritance under a marriage contract. James Dunlop, elder of Garnkirk, and his wife, Henrietta Maxwell, signed a marriage contract that settled the estate of Garnkirk on the two spouses and any heirs-male of their marriage. Dunlop and Maxwell’s eldest son, James Dunlop the younger, was a Glasgow merchant who contracted substantial debts, with James Sr. as a co-obligant. James Jr. eventually became insolvent and transferred his effects to Alexander Spiers, and others, as trustees for his creditors. The joint debts were purchased by friends of James Sr., including Thomas Dunlop. To secure these debts, James Sr. granted the friends a bond over his estate, and subsequently granted them a trust disposition. On September 17, 1764, James Sr. executed three additional deeds. First, he executed a bond providing a liferent to James Jr.; his wife, Mary Ritchie; and their children, provided that the liferent was an alimentary provision not subject to the son’s debts or to alienation. Second, he executed a provision for his younger children. And third, James Sr. executed a new deed empowering his trustees to sell his estate and apply the proceeds in the following order: (1) to the payment of James Sr.’s debts, (2) to the provision for his younger children, and (3) to the provision for James Jr. The pursuers, James Jr.’s trustees, sought to have these deeds set aside on the ground that the marriage contract barred the elder Dunlop from restricting his son’s inheritance. The defenders, James Sr.’s trustees, responded that a father had the right to provide for his other children and to shield the estate from being taken by creditors.
Alexander v. Beaumont 1772 Contracts and Obligations, Breach of Contract, Debt, Contract, Tack, Aliment Robert Alexander hired John Beaumont in 1770 to mine the coal on Alexander's property in Blackhouse and Boghall in Ayrshire. Under the contract, Beaumont was to deliver coal from Alexander's property to the harbor of Ayr. Beaumont brought the coal to the harbor, but he claimed that there were no people who could receive on Alexander's behalf. Beaumont applied to William Alexander, the brother of Robert, for instructions. According to Beaumont, William directed him to offer the coal to the Newton Company or a third party, or to "bing" the coals "on the hill." The parties disagreed over the expenses incurred for coal binged on the hill. Alexander also accused Beaumont of failing to separate the bings of great coal from the bings of pan wood. Alexander believed that some coal caught fire because of Beaumont's alleged failure to separate great coal from pan wood.
Alexander v. Lord Monboddo's Interlocutor 1787 Prescription, Interlocutor, Libel, Debt, Parole Evidence, Oath of Party Pursuer James Alexander petitioned the Court of Session to alter Lord Monboddo's interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Alexander v. Ross 1767 Debt, Aliment, Succession, Interlocutor, Contract of marriage, Representation In the action between Alexander, pursuer, and Ross, defender, Marjory Ross and John Baillie petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Alexander Watson v. John Pyot 1800 Debt, Liferent, Aliment, Succession, Entail, Contract This case concerned a father’s power to dispose of an estate that was the subject of a marriage contract, to the detriment of his son by that marriage. The son, Alexander Watson Jr., was the pursuer. A marriage contract between his parents, Alexander Watson Sr. and Jane Fulertoun, required Alexander Sr. to resign the estate of Turin to himself and the heirs-male of the marriage (and failing that, to certain substitutes). While still living, Alexander Sr. gave Alexander Jr. a portion of the lands included in the contract, along with certain lands that he acquired after making the contract. Subsequently, Alexander Sr. executed a series of deeds curtailing his son’s right to the estate, including a disposition of the remaining lands in favor of John Pyot, a distant relative. Alexander Jr. sought to have these deeds set aside on the ground that they violated the marriage contract. However, John Pyot claimed that Alexander Jr. had relinquished his claim by accepting the previous conveyance from his father.
Alexander Young and others v. Andrew Johnston and others 1767 Election contest, Debt, Aliment, Reduction, Succession, Election The pursuers alleged that Andrew Johnston Sr., bailie of Anstruther Easter, and his son Andrew Jr. accepted money to pay off the town's debt from men who wished to run for the borough's parliament seat. The pursuers therefore sought to have the election reduced.
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.
Alexander-James Grant v. Countess of Sutherland 1773 Debt, Adjudication, Ranking of Creditors, Sequestration, Sasine, Title Alexander-James Grant petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor concerning the ranking of creditors. The Countess of Sutherland and her Tutors answered the petition, defending the existing determination of priority.
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.
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.
Andrew Heron v. John Vining Heron 1766 Succession, Debt, Deed, Disposition, Tailzie, Aliment Doctor Andrew Heron pursued John Vining Heron in a dispute concerning the validity of deeds executed in 1715, 1726, and 1728, arguing that the 1715 deed was never delivered or completed while upholding the later deeds as valid settlements. After petitioning twice in July 1766 to alter a recent interlocutor, Heron replied in February 1767 regarding the deeds' validity, and John Vining Heron subsequently submitted duplies in April 1767 in obedience to the Court's interlocutor of March 4, 1767.
Andrew Heron v. Patrick Heron 1774 Debt, Arrestment, Sequestration, Inhibition, Process, Reduction Doctor Andrew Heron of Bargaly, pursuer, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor in his action against Patrick Heron, defender. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Arbuthnott v. Gilmour 1765 Debt, Adjudication, Succession, Reduction, Creditor, Trust John Arbuthnott petitioned the Court to overturn an interlocutor ordering him to convey a debt and diligence to the representatives of the late James Justice. Elizabeth Gilmour, Justice’s widow, answered, arguing that the assignation to Arbuthnott had been granted as collateral security rather than in trust.
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.
Archibald and James Robertson v. John Laird 1793 Insurance, Adjudication, Penalty, Debt, Bill of Exchange, Deviation Archibald and James Robertson, insurance brokers in Greenock, petitioned the Court to alter a prior interlocutor pronounced in their action against John Laird, merchant there, regarding whether a voyage alteration had voided an insurance policy. The pursuers contended that a liberty to call at an English port imported a liberty to discharge at Hull by statute and custom, while Laird answered that the alteration rendered the policy void and subsequently denied that calling at a port implied any right to discharge there. The parties exchanged replies and duplies on the construction of the policy's port liberties and the validity of the coverage.
Archibald Craig v. Emilia Brodie 1773 Succession, Debt, Adjudication, Aliment, Bill of Exchange, Sequestration Archibald Craig obtained a court order for payment of a debt owed to him by Emilia Brodie. After Emilia died, Craig sought to collect the funds from her daughter, Margaret Brodie, who had intromitted with the estate.
Armstrong and Son, and Others v. Thomas Moffat and Others 1800 Contract, Interlocutor, Penalty, Sheriff, Debt, Fine The candlemakers in Dalkeith routinely entered into one-year contracts with the Society of Fleshers to purchase the tallow from slaughtered cattle. This tallow was provided at a fixed price, and the candlemakers were entitled to examine it and receive a discount for any impurities they found. In 1799, the candlemakers sought, and obtained, a regulation providing for two appointees to search the tallow for impurities before it was transferred to them. The fleshers argued that this regulation should be suspended—or, at minimum, that they should receive a higher price—because the candlemakers were not entitled to receive purified tallow at the established contract price.
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.
Attorney of Thomas Cullen & Co v. David Philp 1792 Debt, Creditor, Bill of Exchange, Contract, Employment, Pactum Illicitum The attorney of Thomas Cullen and Company opposed David Philp, merchant in Boarhills, who as suspender pleaded that no action could lie upon bills alleged to have arisen from a smuggling transaction in which the pursuers were principals or accessories. The attorney replied that this plea of non-action for smuggled goods was unjust and unsupported by law or fact.
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.
Ballantyne v. Malcolm 1793 Debt, Aliment, Succession, Defamation, Interlocutor, Fraud Alexander Malcolm, defender, petitioned against an interlocutor issued by Lord Monboddo in the action raised by Ballantyne, pursuer. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
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.
Bank of Scotland v. Chalmers 1796 Debt, Adjudication, Teind, Sequestration, Infeftment, Ranking and Sale The Bank of Scotland, pursuer, and William Ramsay reported on the state of debt and entitlements in the division of the estates of George Chalmers, defender. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Bannerman v. Shaw and Ritchie 1795 Debt, Aliment, Succession, Creditor, Interest, Interlocutor The Reverend Mr. James Bannerman, as executor of Mrs Beatrix Goldie, petitioned the Court to overturn an interlocutor ordering him to condescend on a bond granted by his late husband. David Shaw of Jamaica and his attorney Alexander Ritchie answered, responding to claims under a bond dated 1771. Bannerman then petitioned to alter the interlocutor and be assoilzied, whereupon Shaw and Ritchie answered again, this time responding to the claim for a bond due from Bannerman’s late uncle Patrick Bannerman.
Beck v. M'Clone 1785 Factor, Agent, Debt, Damages, Bargain, Aliment This case was about a contract dispute. The defenders, Samuel Macclone Jr. and Samuel Macclone Sr., lived on the farm of Ross. The pursuer, John Beck, alleged that Samuel Jr. had agreed to sell him the farm’s entire output of oats. The Macclones responded that Samuel Jr. had no authority to make the bargain on behalf of his father, who was the sole tenant, and that Beck had known this when he allegedly entered into the transaction.
Belch [Belsh] v. Wilson and Son 1788 Arrestment, Creditor, Bill of Exchange, Forgery, Debt, Sequestration Peter Belsh, a merchant in Stirling, charged William Wilson and Son, merchants in Bannockburn, over a discounted bill involving indorsers. Wilson and Son suspended the charge and subsequently submitted an information contending that their subscription to the promissory note was a forgery and therefore void.

Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 4632)