Legal Subject: Poinding

Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
Clifford and Sons v. Mosman 1772 Poinding, Arrestment, Ranking of Creditors John Syme and Son, merchants in Leith, owed money to Clifford and Son, pursuer, merchants in Amsterdam. Due to the nature of the transaction, the money was required to pass through the hands of William Hogg and Son, merchants in Edinburgh. (In the transaction, another person, Archibald Maclean, advanced money to William Hogg and Son, which they in turn gave to John Syme and Son. McLean was then reimbursed by Clifford and Son). William Hogg and Son subsequently encounter financial problems, which raised the possibility that its creditors would to collect the money. Clifford and Son sought to avoid this possibility. Hugh Mosman, a writer in Edinburgh and creditor of William Hogg and Son, claimed an interest in the payment from John Syme and Son to William Hogg and Son. Clifford and Son disputed Mosman's claim by arguing that they were entitled to the payment because they provided the funds in the first place.
More and Irvine v. Gibson 1770 Poinding, Deforcement 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.