AI-transcribed

Mesne or final process against the person or estate. Applied to witnesses, &c., it signifies a judge's order in the nature of a subpœna. To do diligence on a bill is to issue execution upon it, which may be done without an action.

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: Diligence

Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
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.
A. R. Henderson v. John Mackay 1831 Diligence, Employment, Damages, Contract, Interlocutor, Breach of Contract
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.
Copland v. Ireland 1786 Proof, Interlocutor, Tack, Diligence, Rent, Sequestration William Ireland petitioned the Court for leave to adduce additional proof and to renew diligence against William Birtwhistle, alleging that William Copland of Gregory had failed to report proof regarding Birtwhistle. Copland answered, responding to the claim that he had neglected to report the proof concerning Birtwhistle.
Dunn v. Johnston, et al 1796 Creditor, Adjudication, Interlocutor, Ranking of Creditors, Ranking and Sale, Diligence Mr Johnston of Carnfalloch petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary that postponed his interest in the ranking, on the basis that the adjudication had been led after certification. The respondents answered, disputing the argument that an adjudication obtained after certification should be ranked with preference.
Elliot v. Romanis 1790 Bill of Exchange, Execution, Debt, Prescription, Creditor, Diligence Helen Elliot pursued Robert Romanis, a Lauder writer, for loss resulting from an officer’s conduct and the negligence of others. Romanis petitioned to alter the court’s interlocutor to deny liability, and subsequently raised an action against John GrahamsLie. GrahamsLie petitioned to be assoilzied from that action, and Romanis answered that his own liability arose from his own omission rather than GrahamsLie’s conduct, noting that the execution had been obtained by others.
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, Reid and Sons v. Lancaster and Jamieson 1793 Arrestment, Bill of Exchange, Diligence, Citation, Horning, Statute Fraser, Reid and Sons claimed preferential rights to goods held in Coats’s custody, asserting priority based on protested bills for specific cargoes and challenging arrestments later laid by Lancaster and Jamieson. The defenders lodged duplies disputing the validity of the arrestments and the question of preference, responding to the pursuers’ replies.
Grant v. McIntosh 1788 Debt, Adjudication, Arrestment, Ranking of Creditors, Prescription, Diligence Sir James Grant pursued Robert M’Intosh for diligence to compel the production of writings relating to debt payment in an action against the York-Buildings Company. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Grant v. Thomson 1776 Debt, Arrestment, Bankruptcy, Bill of Exchange, Diligence, Adjudication Pursuer John Grant was a creditor of John Taylor, who became insolvent and unable to repay Grant. Grant obtained two letters of horning against Taylor for his failure to repay. Grant learned that defender George Thomson, an innkeeper in Leith, was a debtor of Taylor. Grant used arrestments to bring an action against Thomson for the sum he owed to Taylor. Thomson had granted two bills payable to Taylor for the sum owed, which were then indorsed by Taylor to defender Alexander Ogilvie as clerk of the Edinburgh rope-work company. (Taylor owed money to this company for the purchase of ropes and sails.) The defenders argued that sums due by bill were not subject to arrestment. Grant conceded that this was true in the case of a bona fide indorsee. Grant maintained, however, that the bills were subject to arrestment where transactions were used to shield a debtor's assets from creditors. The defenders responded that the transactions at issue were bona fide and arms-length transactions.
Hart v. Lord Eskgrove's Interlocutor 1787 Debt, Creditor, Cautioner, Bill of Exchange, Bankruptcy, Diligence James Hart, as pursuer, petitioned the Court of Session to alter an interlocutor issued by Lord Eskgrove. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Huggan v. Gray 1794 Bill of Exchange, Diligence, Interlocutor, Bankruptcy, Arrestment, Debt Huggan petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor against the suspender George Jardine and to find the letters orderly proceeded. Gray responded, arguing that Huggan lacked proper title to proceed in diligence and that no due notification of dishonour had been made to him.
Hunt v. Wilson and Robb 1786 Arrestment, Diligence, Sist, Sequestration, Debt, Lis Alibi Pendens John Wilson and James Robb, as present Provost and Jailor, argued that they were not liable to William Love because a lis pendens barred diligence from the pursuer Hunt’s bill-chamber appearance. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
John Finlay v. Robert Syme Clerk to the Signet 1772 Hypothec, Debt security, Debt, Trustee, Interlocutor, Diligence Robert Syme, defender, had in his possession a number of papers belonging to John Finlay, pursuer. Finlay sued his own father, Robert Finlay, and asked Syme for the papers as evidence in the suit against his father. Syme sought to retain Finlay's papers because Finlay was indebted to him. The court twice ordered Syme, by interlocutor, to return the papers to Finlay's custody. Syme refused, claiming that he had a hypothec (security) on the writings in his custody. Syme argued that he was not required to return the papers until Finlay satisfied his debt to Syme. Syme cited authorities for the proposition that agents have a right of hypothec or retention in their client's writings for claims of payment.
Kincaid v. Lord Justic Clerk's Interlocutor 1808 Sequestration, Bill of Exchange, Diligence, Oath, Cautioner, Fraud Kincaid sought suspension of a charge brought against him upon a bill, alleging that the drawer had already paid the debt and that the charger and drawer had fraudulently attempted to extort double payment. 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.
Macharg and Others v. Macharg and his Curators 1776 Trust, Onus Probandi, Bill of Exchange, Diligence, Debt, Cautioner Archibald McHarg was the ordinary doer of James McHarg of Keirs. When he died, in July 1774, two bills from McHarg of Keirs were in his possession. One, for £230 sterling, was unendorsed and had been accepted by James McHarg in Tairly. The other was for £264 sterling. McHarg of Keirs argued that it was self-evident that Archibald McHarg had held both of these bills in trust: the first to recover payment, the second as a fund of credit. Keirs petitioned the Court to compel the heirs of Archibald McHarg to either deliver these bills to him or destroy them. The defenders, James McHarg, eldest son of Archibald, and his curators, argued that as these bills had been found in the possession of Archibald McHarg, the burden of proof of possession lay on McHarg of Keirs. Lord Monboddo found that the bills had been put into McHarg's hands by Keirs. The defenders gave representation, and then petitioned the Court to review Monboddo's interlocutors. According to marginalia on the case documents, the Court adhered.
Magistrates and Councellors of the Burgh of Dunfermline v. Wilson, et al 1786 Debt, Arrestment, Election contest, Creditor, Aliment, Diligence The Magistrates and Councellors of the Burgh of Dunfermline, as defenders, filed answers to the petition of Thomas Wardlaw and others, responding to claims of electoral corruption. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Marquis of Lothian v. His Majesty's Advocate 1767 Crown, Superior and Vassal, Forfeiture, Clan Act, Diligence, Debt Pursuer William Henry Kerr, Marquis of Lothian, was the superior of lands in Linton Parish, including the estate of Henry Kerr of Graden. Kerr of Graden was convicted of treason for his role in the Jacobite rising, resulting in the forfeiture of his estate. The Marquis of Lothian claimed the estate pursuant to the Clan Act, which provided that certain forfeited lands would revert to the superior. His Majesty’s Advocate, James Montgomery, sought a delay to allow time for a potential settlement, while also raising procedural objections to the Marquis’s claim.
Moir v. Callender 1796 Aliment, Arrestment, Sequestration, Interlocutor, Diligence, Process Defender William Callender answered the petition and complaint of pursuers John Moir and William Allister, asserting that his conduct was lawful and the petition ill-founded. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
More and Irvine v. Gibson 1770 Poinding, Deforcement, Debt, Arrestment, Cautioner, Diligence Pursuers More and Irvine were merchants in Gottenburgh (Gothenburg), Sweden. William Duncan owed them money. Robert Monro also agreed to act as a cautioner for Duncan. More and Irvine obtained an order of poinding for Duncan's assets, allowing them to secure Duncan's assets for payment of the debt. Duncan's stepson, defender Walter Gibson, prevented More and Irvine's agents from entering Duncan's house. Gibson claimed that he, not Duncan, owned the house. When More and Irvine's agents later returned to the house with letters of open doors, they found the house emptied of its most valuable furniture. Gibson also claimed that he was the rightful owner of the furniture in the house. More and Irvine accused Gibson of obstructing the poinding.
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.
Shiells v. Bayne 1788 Adjudication, Sasine, Interlocutor, Diligence, Exhibition, Reduction John Shiells, Helen Waldie Carrier, and James Breaden, as pursuers, presented a reclaiming petition against an interlocutor issued by Lord Dunfinnan in their action against Bayne, the defender. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Simpson v. Morison, and Glass and Son 1786 Debt, Creditor, Reduction, Bill of Exchange, Diligence, Aliment Elisabeth Simpson, spouse of James Davidson, petitioned the Court to remit an interlocutor of Lord Alva that had allowed the reduction of her husband's land disposition. William Morison, late maltman in Stirling, and John Glass and Son, merchants there and Morison's assignees, answered the petition on behalf of themselves and Davidson for his interest.
Spence v. Tennent 1765 Debt, Arrestment, Bill of Exchange, Diligence, Creditor, Proof William Spence, merchant in Linlithgow, pursued James Tennent, tobacconist in Glasgow, and William Maclaren, messenger there, for the unlawful seizure and detention of his watch and for extortion under false pretenses. Spence petitioned the Court to alter a recent interlocutor, and thereafter answered petitions by Tennent and Maclaren, responding to allegations of illegal diligence and undue exaction.
Stewart V. Ireland 1796 Conveyance, Disposition, Mandate, Diligence, Freeholder, Election contest Charles Stewart petitioned to overturn the freeholders' refusal to enroll him on the roll of freeholders, resting his claim upon titles and a valuation certificate, and William Ireland answered that the qualification was nominal and fictitious and that no mandate had been produced. The parties exchanged replies and duplies disputing the validity of the claim and seeking commission to recover material writings, after which Ireland petitioned against an Inner-House interlocutor that had found the freeholders erred in refusing admission. Stewart subsequently moved the court to apply a recent judgment of the House of Peers and to modify the account of expenses.
Thomas McAllan v. Hugh Bell 1790 Debt, Bankruptcy, Bill of Exchange, Sequestration, Confirmation, Diligence In the case between pursuer Thomas McAllan and defender Hugh Bell, John, David, and Robert Jobson, as trustees and executors of the deceased David Jobson, petitioned the Court to permit sequestration of David Ogilvie's estate under the 1789 Act for rendering payment of creditors more equal and expeditious. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Turnbull and Petticrew Petition 1794 Debt, Bankruptcy, Sequestration, Trustee, Diligence, Inhibition John Turnbull, with the concurrence of William Petticrew, petitioned the Court to sequestrate his estate and appoint creditors' meetings. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Welsh v. M'Veaghs 1780 Debt, Arrestment, Cautioner, Poinding, Diligence, Aliment Margaret Lumsden, relict of Hugh M'Veagh, and Henry Macveagh, his son, petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor regarding whether a messenger might be entrusted with custody of money recovered by poindings. William Welsh answered, defending the liability of Lumsden and Macveagh as cautioners for a fraudulent messenger.
William Cuningham and Company v. Gilbert Lang 1775 Factor, Intromission, Debt, Bankruptcy, Arrestment, Diligence Defender Gilbert Lang formed a partnership with John Wright Jr. for the purpose of manufacturing and selling snuff tobacco. The firm failed, and to accomplish payment of its debts, Lang assigned the partnership’s assets to Cuningham and Company, its principal creditor; Cuningham, in return, granted Lang a factory to dispose of the goods and collect any debts due to the partnership. A dispute arose over Lang’s management of the assets, and Cuningham and Company filed suit.

Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 473)