| 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 |
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. |
| 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. |
