Legal Subject: Multiple-Poinding

Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
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.
Burden alias Campbell v. Campbells and Robertson 1791 Succession, Aliment, Creditor, Legacy, Multiple-Poinding, Disposition Mrs Elizabeth Burden, alias Campbell, pursued the Campbells and Robertson as heir of her predeceased son John Campbell, claiming entitlement to his share of the residue of Duncan Campbell’s estate under the will’s substitution clause. She subsequently advanced additional claims under both the will and intestacy law, citing precedent for representative succession. The dispute centered on whether a mother could represent her deceased son to recover his portion of the inheritance under these competing theories of succession.
Cameron v. Lord Craig's Interlocutor 1797 Succession, Tack, Multiple-Poinding, Lease, Warrandice, Interlocutor Ewen Cameron sought reimbursement of court and House of Lords expenses incurred in defending against lease claims brought by Helen and Janet Cameron, the daughters of his deceased father John Cameron, regarding the disincumbering of lands. He petitioned against Lord Craig’s interlocutor refusing to allow retention of these costs, proceeding against the trustees and the daughters, whereupon Helen’s counsel argued the claim was procedurally barred and legally unsound. Cameron subsequently lodged a reclaiming petition against the Inner-House interlocutor.
Creditors of Moncreiffe v. Moncreiffe 1776 Multiple-Poinding, Ranking of Creditors, Debt, Interlocutor, Assignation, Creditor Sir Thomas Moncreiffe provided £1,000 to the younger children of his son, Thomas. A dispute between Thomas' two children, William and Patrick, was resolved in the latter's favor. William then became the target of several of Patrick's creditors, who brought action for payment before Lord Elliock. Sir William Moncreiffe responded with a process of multiple-poinding (claim adjudication), which Lord Kennet transferred to the process before Lord Elliock. Moncreiffe then petitioned the Court to affirm that the ranking must be fully adjusted before he be required to make payment. Cochrane, Murdoch, and Company, creditors in the ranking, answered that the ranking was indeed concluded. They also petitioned to be ranked on and to recover expenses from the draught of John Thain, another creditor of Moncreiffe, now deceased. John Thain's widow and children then submitted answers to this petition, asking the Court to refuse Cochrane, Murdoch, & Co.'s request. See also John Thain, Advocate in Aberdeen v. Sir William Moncrief of Moncrief, a related case that came before Lord Hailes.
Mair v. Harries, et al 1789 Succession, Aliment, Debt, Tack, Adjudication, Multiple-Poinding Betty Mair petitioned the Court against Lord Monboddo's interlocutors, asserting that under a mutual agreement with her deceased husband Peter Harries she held exclusive right to his effects and a bond. Daniel, William, and Isabel Harries, the deceased's next of kin, answered the petition, contesting the widow's claim to the estate.
Naismith v. M'Morrow 1783 Sequestration, Factor, Debt, Aliment, Arrestment, Multiple-Poinding This case was about competing claims to rents on the estate of William Maxwell of Ardwell. In 1780, Maxwell’s tenants initiated a proceeding to prioritize various claims made by Maxwell’s creditors. As part of that proceeding, the Lord Ordinary sequestrated the disputed rents and appointed Thomas Naismith as factor. However, in 1781, two of Maxwell’s tenants initiated a second proceeding regarding their rents. In the second proceeding, Elizabeth M’Morrow obtained a preference based on an arrestment she had served on the tenants. Naismith challenged M’Morrow’s preference. However, M’Morrow responded that the earlier sequestration was improperly obtained and that, in any case, her arrestment predated the sequestration.
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.
Sir James Grant v. Simon Fraser 1785 Debt, Adjudication, Cautioner, Interlocutor, Multiple-Poinding, Security Sir James Grant of Grant, Baronet, as pursuer, petitioned the Court of Session to alter its recent interlocutor in his case against Simon Fraser, the defender. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Thomsons v. Campbell 1789 Sequestration, Bill of Exchange, Reduction, Multiple-Poinding, Interdict, Arrestment Andrew, George, and Andrew Thomsons petitioned the Court to alter Lord Monboddo's interlocutor. Neil Campbell of Inverliver answered, arguing that the petitioners had misstated the grounds of suspension and the nature of his plea.

Documents discussing this subject (79)