| John and Ursula Smith v. James Marshall |
21 Jul 1780
|
Disposition |
Upon the sale of Drongan to Mungo Smith in 1765, the children of the late John Smith and Ursula Hamilton had right to one eleventh of the price. Their uncles and tutors, Thomas Hamilton of Overtoun and John Hamilton of Dowan, lodged this sum in Virginia with their firm John Hamilton and Company. In 1775 this money was lost when the firm's assets were locked up, and the Smith siblings brought action against John Hamilton of Dowan; Archibald Hamilton, the son of the late Thomas Hamilton of Overtoun; and the children of the late John Marshall, for recovery of this sum. John Marshall had served as cautioner to the 1763 bond for Drongan granted by the Hamiltons to their pupils. He died in 1774, having conveyed the bulk of his subjects to his younger children, William and Jean, although his eldest son, James, held the general disposition. The action came before Lord Braxfield, who repelled James Marshall's defenses but then reported the case. In December of 1779 the Court ruled that James Marshall was liable to the pursuers for the debt, but only in proportion with the other onerous debts of his father. Upon receiving a petition and answers, the Court ruled again in July of 1780, adhering to their previous interlocutor. |
| Mrs Jean Hall v. Creditors of Robert Hall |
1784
|
Ranking and Sale, Disposition |
This case was about the ranking and sale of the estate of the late Robert Hall of Fulbar. Many years prior to the ranking, Robert agreed to pay his sister, Jean Hall, 2000 merks if she married with the consent of certain family members. The agreement provided that if Jean married without consent, or if she died without marrying, the 2000 merks would devolve to Robert. Robert subsequently granted Jean a bond of corroboration, which omitted the provision regarding Jean’s death before marriage. Later, Jean granted a disposition of the 2000 merks to her nieces and nephews, including the petitioner, Miss Jean Hall. When the ranking and sale commenced, Miss Jean sought to be ranked on the contract, bond, and disposition, but other creditors objected that that the elder Jean Hall had died unmarried. Miss Jean Hall argued that the marriage condition was unjust, that the bond of corroboration should take precedence over the contract, and that the elder Jean held a property right entitling her to dispose of the money. |
