AI-transcribed

Adjudication of Bankruptcy. Also the appointment by the Court of a receiver of the rents and profits of an estate pending litigation of the title. SEQUESTRATION FOR RENT; Distress by a landlord.

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.
Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
Drummond and Drummond, et al v. Barton, et al. 1793 Bankruptcy, Debt, Ranking of Creditors, Sequestration, Trustee, Creditor The pursuers, as common agent and creditors of Hugh Seton, argued against Barton, et al that company-creditors who drew dividends in France must communicate those sums before ranking on Seton’s Scottish funds. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Drummonds v. Seton, et al 1794 Bankruptcy, Debt, Liferent, Creditor, Trustees, Sequestration Robert and Henry Drummonds, creditors of Hugh Seton, disputed with Archibald Seton, Hugh’s heir-male, over whether the liferent of a dividend from Hugh’s insolvent estate belonged to the creditors at large or to Archibald as heir. The Drummonds argued that Archibald could not rank for dividend until the full £8000 marriage provision was paid, or that he could be ranked for no more than the value of his father’s liferent-right as a debt in diem, while Archibald petitioned to reclaim the dividend, contending that trustees had to be satisfied from the marriage contract debt before creditors could claim the liferent. Robert Blair separately petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor, and the parties further disputed whether Hugh’s liferent right was vested and unconditional or conditional upon payment of the marriage provision.
Dunlop, and Other Trustees of Carlyle and Co v. Spiers and Others 1775 Debt, Ranking of Creditors, Sequestration, Creditor, Bankruptcy, Trustee This case was about the ability of creditors to recover debts from an individual member of a partnership. The debtor in question, James Dunlop, was a partner in John Carlyle and Company. After Carlyle and Company failed, trustees were appointed to represent two separate but related interests: the partnership itself (for the purpose of unwinding the firm) and the partnership’s creditors. These trustees lodged two types of claims with the trustees of James Dunlop, who had also become insolvent. First, on behalf of the partnership, the trustees pursued claims for debts owed by Dunlop to the firm. Second, on behalf of the firm’s creditors, they claimed that Dunlop was personally liable for the firm’s debts. When Dunlop’s trustees refused these claims, the Carlyle trustees sued. Dunlop’s trustees, as defenders, argued that the pursuers could not be ranked on Dunlop’s estate for both categories of debt.
Dunmore v. Trustee for Buchanans 1796 Bankruptcy, Sequestration, Contract, Debt, Creditor, Trustee Robert Dunmore, Esq. petitioned the Court of Session to alter a recent interlocutor pronounced in his litigation against the Trustee for Buchanans. He submitted an initial petition on 15 February 1797 seeking this relief, and subsequently presented an additional petition on 4 March 1797 reiterating his request that the Court modify its order.
Earl of Rothes v. Shepherd 1766 Landlord and tenant, Rent, Arrestment, Sequestration, Possession, Tack Alexander Shepherd, a tenant farmer, rented land in Begg from the Earl of Rothes. After failing to pay a year's rent, Shepherd sought a bill of suspension from the court to avoid getting evicted, claiming that the time and money that he had invested in enclosing the land with hedges and ditches, at the Earl's encouragement, had rendered it impossible to pay his rent. The Earl of Rothes argued that Shepherd was not the industrious farmer and improver that he claimed to be.
Edie, Laird, and Others v. Lord Craig's Interlocutor 1794 Creditor, Ranking of Creditors, Disposition, Interlocutor, Sequestration, Teinds Edie, Laird, and others challenged Lord Craig's interlocutor ranking creditors' claims on Kerse lands, contending that objections to Elizabeth Dickie, Janet Gray, and Elizabeth Weir were wrongly omitted and that representation was valid under the Act of Sederunt. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Faculty of Advocates v. Rae 1832 Bankruptcy, Debt, Fraud, Creditor, Arrestment, Sequestration The Dean and Faculty of Advocates opposed William Rae's admission to the Faculty on Trial, arguing that he should not be admitted to the Office of Advocate notwithstanding a remit previously granted in his favor. Rae answered the Faculty's allegations, defending his qualifications and right to admission against their opposition.
Folsetter and Wright v. Lord Justice Clerk's Interlocutor 1786 Apprentice, Contract, Theft, Interlocutor, Sequestration, Fraud William Folsetter and James Cobban petitioned the Court to alter the Lord Justice Clerk's interlocutor on the bills. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Forbes and Others v. Forrester & co 1794 Bankruptcy, Debt, Trustee, Creditor, Sequestration, Factor Sir William Forbes and others, as pursuers, sought to establish Alexander Nairne as the proper trustee for the sequestrated estate of Peter Forrester and Company, while the creditors of that estate contended that Robert Forrester should be confirmed as trustee under the statute governing sequestrated estates. The parties presented competing memorials advancing their respective candidates for the office.
Forsyth v. Abercromby 1793 Suspension, Arrestment, Sequestration, Jurisdiction, Interlocutor, Witness Sir George Abercromby, James Urquhart, and George Forbes, as pursuers, petitioned the Court to remit an interlocutor of the Sheriff of Banffshire regarding the unlawful conduct of Alexander Gordon and Gavin Steuart. Robert Forsyth, as defender, answered the petition, responding to allegations that he had used improper language in his representation.
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, et al v. Sprott 1796 Common Law, Gambling, Interdict, Bankruptcy, Sequestration, Creditor Patrick Frazer, Walter Berry, and Henry Farquharson pursued a process to remit a Magistrates' interdict against their private lottery, arguing that such lotteries were not prohibited by statute or common law. The respondent Sprott opposed the remit, contending that private lotteries constituted unlawful gaming and were injurious to public order and fair trade. The dispute centered on whether private lotteries were legally permissible or prohibited as harmful to the public.
George Allan and Others v. Andrew Crambie and Others 1770 Election contest, Aliment, Arrestment, Sequestration, Election, Reduction Pursuers George Allan, Andrew Garnock, and Charles Cock challenged the September 1769 election of defender James Hunter as deacon of the Incorporation of Hammermen of the town of Kinghorn. There were 12 votes for Allan and 10 votes for Hunter, but Hunter was able to successfully challenge the qualifications of 6 of the 12 voters in favor of Allan. For example, two of the voters were apparently non-residents. Allan, on the other hand, sought to challenge 3 of the 10 votes for Hunter. One voter was struck from the rolls of the incorporation for failure to pay dues. Allan et al. sought to prove that Allan properly achieved a majority of votes in the election. The parties disputed who received the majority of votes to become the deacon of the incorporation.
George Crichton v. William Bell and William Downe Gillon 1832 Bankruptcy, Debt, Creditor, Arrestment, Sequestration, Trustee George Crichton pursued William Bell and William Downe Gillon regarding expenses. After Lord Mackenzie pronounced an interlocutor finding that no expenses were due to either party, Bell reclaimed against that determination, submitting notes asking the Court to alter the finding and declare him entitled to his expenses or to remit them when taxed.
George Forbes v. Ann Mackenzie and Richard Paterson 1775 Agent, Debt, Poor's Roll, Sequestration, Contract, Adjudication Defenders Ann Mackenzie and Richard Paterson retained pursuer George Forbes to help them recover a £. 200 bond granted to Mackenzie’s deceased father. Mackenzie and Paterson subsequently learned that they were eligible to receive court-appointed counsel through the “poor’s roll.” They successfully petitioned the Court of Session for the benefit of the poor’s roll and had the contract with Forbes voided. Forbes, who had already started working to recover the bond, sued Mackenzie and Patterson for the balance on their account. Mackenzie and Paterson disputed the amount that was owed and claimed that it should not be due until they had successfully recovered payment for the bond.
George v. Christie 1788 Sequestration, Creditor, Bankruptcy, Debt, Bill of Exchange, Aliment George sought restitution of barley he had delivered to Alexander Dewar, an insolvent debtor who was actively seeking sequestration, alleging that Dewar had acted in mala fide. William Christie, a Stirling merchant, petitioned to alter the court’s interlocutor, asserting that his bill for the barley equated to cash and that he stood as a common creditor. The creditors of Dewar’s sequestrated estate answered Christie’s condescendence, contending that the grain had been fraudulently delivered to the bankrupt.
Gilbert MacPherson v. John Arrot 1766 Debt, Liferent, Aliment, Succession, Trust, Sequestration Gilbert MacPherson, Writer in Inverary, pursued John Arrot of Foffarty regarding a debt, and Arrot answered the petition, responding to the grounds of debt and the negotiability of the writings. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Glover and Others v. Vasie 1776 Commission of Bankruptcy In England, Assignees, Debt, Bankruptcy, Arrestment, Sequestration In 1770, John Bedford and Son, Leeds merchants, went bankrupt. One of their English creditors, Martin Fenwick, laid arrestments (judicial security) upon Colin Maclaren, a Scottish debtor of Bedford and Son. Fenwick recovered what he was owed, and then a second English creditor of Bedford and Son, Robert Vasie, laid an arrestment upon the remainder of MacLaren's debt. Vasie had previously received a dividend under an English commission of bankruptcy. During the process, Lord Hailes gave preference to Vasie. Benjamin Glover and other assignees of Bedford and Son objected to this preference on account of the dividend Vasie possessed. They also argued that as an Englishman Vasie could not compete with their claim upon Bedford and Son’s Scottish effects. Vasie, in turn, argued that the pursuers, having been made assignees by an English commission of bankruptcy, had no right of action in Scotland. The Court ruled that Messrs. Glover, etc. had a right of action to recover Bedford and Son's Scottish effects, and barred Vasie from competing.
Gordon of Cluny v. John Anderson 1801 Lease, Damages, Interlocutor, Tack, Sequestration, Arrestment Lieutenant-Colonel John Gordon of Cluny raised an action of damages against John Anderson and others, seeking reparation for their failure to use the fodder of the way-going crop in accordance with lease regulations. The defenders lodged additional defences maintaining that the action was incompetent, and subsequently argued that the pursuer had no equitable claim for straw lost due to interdict and that they were entitled to be assoilzied. The litigation concerned the application of lease regulations to the fodder of the last crop following a House of Lords judgment on the interpretation of the lease.
Gordon v. Representatives of Michie 1794 Tack, Possession, Rent, Liferent, Heritor, Sequestration Gordon pursued the Representatives of Michie regarding possession of the Craig of Clunie lands. The petitioners, as heirs of a liferent-tacksman, maintained that they were entitled to continue in possession without summary removal, arguing that the law presumed tacit agreement and required warning before ejection. They initially submitted a memorial advancing this principle, and subsequently petitioned for an order permitting them to remain in possession and restraining the respondents from entering and inclosing the grounds.
Gourlay v. Glen 1786 Debt, Arrestment, Creditor, Interlocutor, Promissory note, Sequestration David Gourlay of Kipdarroch, Deputy-Collector of Supply for the County of Stirling, pursued William Glen regarding competing claims to funds held by John Campbell. The dispute concerned priority between Gourlay’s revenue claim and Glen’s claim to a debt due from John Price. Gourlay initially petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor sustaining Campbell’s defence against Glen; Glen subsequently petitioned to reverse Lord Swinton’s interlocutor decerning against him, and Gourlay answered, maintaining his priority over the consigned funds.
Graham et al v. Macfarlane 1766 Education, Presbytery, Aliment, Defamation, Mala Fides, Sequestration This case involved the efforts of heritors in the parish of Port of Mentieth (Port) to deprive the parish schoolmaster, James Macfarlane, of his office. The heritors claimed that Mcfarlane neglected his schoolmaster duties while operating a side business as a merchandiser, beat the school children under this tutelage, along with other accusations. The Pursuers first complained of Macfarlane to the Sheriff of Perth in 1752, but Macfarlane was allowed to continue. Starting in 1763 and again in 1764, forty heritors and heads of families in Port exhibited a complaint against Macfarlane to the presbytery stating that Macfarlane was unfit to be a school teacher due to neglect of duty while he operated his merchandising business and abusive treatment of students. The Presbytery found Macfarlane unfit to serve as schoolmaster in Port. Macfarlane appealed to the synod of Perth and then to the Court of Session. Macfarlane argued that since the salaries of schoolmasters in parish schools were so low, it was common occurrence for schoolmasters to serve as merchandisers for the goods in demand in their parishes. He acknowledged that he had attended fairs in Stirling and Gartmore to sell lint-seed and trade other goods, but he argued that he was only gone for two days and that it was the custom of the parish to close school on these days because many children were absent to to assist with the bear seed. He outlined his measures of discipline as schoolmaster and claimed that they were not severe as the Pursuers had claimed. Case documents provide details of the day-to-day happenings in the Port school house and Macfarlane's interactions with students.
Grinlay &c v. Lord Gardenstone's Interlocutor 1792 Arrestment, Sequestration, Hypothec, Roup, Possession, Rent Grinlay and others petitioned the court to revise Lord Gardenstone’s interlocutor, arguing that as bona fide purchasers at public sale they were not liable for furniture from Mrs. Campbell and that the sheriff’s rent preference was improper. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Grove v. Petre 1785 Debt, Adjudication, Creditor, Ranking of Creditors, Sequestration, Prescription Mrs. Martha Grove and other creditors of the York-Building Company pursued warrants for payment of their debts from the company's estates, while Anne, Lady Petre, Lord Stourton, and the heirs of the Duke of Norfolk defended by objecting, citing prior adjudication and preference rights as heirs. The litigation originated in claims of compensation and retention against the defenders' rank as heirs of the Duke of Norfolk, to which Lady Petre, Lord Stourton, and Sir Archibald Grant had answered in 1785. After Lady Petre petitioned to resume consideration in 1786, the parties exchanged answers, replies, and duplies in 1787 regarding the creditors' entitlement to the warrants, with the defenders arguing that the pursuers must prove their claims preferable and the creditors maintaining their right to payment despite the objections.
Hamilton v. MacTaggart 1793 Debt, Bankruptcy, Creditor, Bill of Exchange, Sequestration, Deed William M'Taggart answered the petition of Messrs. Hamilton and Co. and James Provan and Co., who claimed that a sale of goods was void under the 1696 Act. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Hammond, Birket, and Smith v. Marshall 1784 Arrestment, Debt, Bill of Exchange, Creditor, Aliment, Sequestration Hammond, Birket, and Smith, pursuers, attempted to arrest (legally claim) funds in the hands of Claud Marshall, a writer in Glasgow, on the ground that Claud possessed funds belonging to their debtor William Marshall. William was in Tobago, and he had sent a bill to Claud with instructions to apply it for the support of William’s daughters. Hammond, Birket, and Smith argued that Claud possessed the bill when the arrestment was used. Claud responded that he had sent the bill off to London by that time, and that payment was made to William’s children.
Harrisons v. Chippendale 1794 Bankruptcy, Debt, Sequestration, Trustee, Creditor, Bill of Exchange The trustee argued that the Harrisons' claims were invalid for lack of indorsement and because they were founded upon post-bankruptcy acknowledgments. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Hately v. Dunlop 1771 Property, Encroachment, Arrestment, Sequestration, Contract, Tack Pursuer Joseph Hately was an engineer who specialized in coal mining. In May 1770 Hately obtained a tack (lease) of coal in the lands of Hutchison near Glasgow. Defender Colin Dunlop was a merchant in Glasgow who also worked in the coal trade. Hately accused Dunlop and his business partner Alexander Houston of trying to monopolize the Glaswegian coal trade. Hately was able to sell his coal at a lower price than Dunlop and Houston, who owned adjoining coal property in the lands of Carmyle. Dunlop accused Hately of encroaching upon his lands, petitioned the local sheriff of Lanark to allow three of his servants to inspect Hately's mines. Hately maintained that he did not encroached on Dunlop's property and only wanted to protect his interest in the coal-trade. Hately then sought the appointment of a land-surveyor, who was not a coallier or connected with the coal trade, to evaluate the land.
Hay v. Watson 1832 Bankruptcy, Debt, Sequestration, Trustee, Creditor, Election contest John Hay, stockbroker in Edinburgh, as pursuer, lodged a reclaiming note against the interlocutor finding the defender, Ebenezer Watson, duly elected trustee on the sequestrated estate of Robert M'Laren. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Helen Stevenson v. Colquhoun Grant & James Stewart 1767 Aliment, Arrestment, Bill of Exchange, Poinding, Sequestration, Trustee Colquhoun Grant, writer to the signet, and James Stewart, writer in Doually, answered the petition of Mrs. Helen Stevenson, arguing that the poinding executed by them was preferable to the prior arrestment. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
His Majesty's Advocate v. Murdison 1773 Theft, Trial, Verdict, Aliment, Arrestment, Sequestration Alexander Murdison was subject to a criminal indictment alleging that he and his herder, John Miller, stole certain sheep “or [were guilty] of receiving and having in their custody the aforesaid parcels of sheep.” Murdison was convicted, and subsequently challenged the verdict on three grounds. First, according to Murdison, the verdict did not specify whether the defendants were guilty of theft or of receiving stolen property. Second, no verdict was given on several of the specific charges in the indictment. Finally, the verdict was signed on a Sunday.
Home v. Purchasers of Renton 1795 Debt, Aliment, Succession, Sequestration, Trust, Creditor Sir John Stirling petitioned the Court to alter a recent interlocutor concerning the entailed Renton estate, seeking authority to disincumber the lands, while George Johnston answered that the entail was valid and the petitioner’s claims lacked legal foundation. Sir Alexander Purves, as Administrator in Law for his children who were heirs of the entail, duplied that the respondents’ conduct in managing the estate had been injurious to the heirs. Dame Mary Willis separately petitioned for permission to pay annuities due under a trust deed executed by Sir Alexander Stirling.
Hon. Mrs Maria Hay Mackenzie and Hugh Munro v. Magistrates of Dingwall and Others 1832 Sequestration, Possession, Tack, Expenses, Interlocutor, Res judicata Mrs. Maria Hay Mackenzie and Hugh Munro petitioned the Court for interim execution pending their appeal against the interlocutor of 11th July 1832 in their action against the Magistrates of Dingwall and others. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Hope v. Mutter 1797 Aliment, Trust, Sequestration, Warrandice, Infeftment, Caution The defender William Mutter, Esq. petitioned the Court to remit the pursuer Hope's proceedings against him for the lands of Camps, which he claimed to have held in peaceable possession for nearly twenty-four years. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Hotchkis v. Royal Bank of Scotland 1796 Debt, Bankruptcy, Valuation, Sequestration, Trustee, Interlocutor William Simpson, Cashier to the defender Royal Bank of Scotland, petitioned the Court in the action brought by pursuer Hotchkis to order the trustee to value securities held by the Bank and to give the option prescribed by statute. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Hugh Baillie and Archibald M'Harg v. John Bland 1772 Suspension, Jurisdiction, Debt, Arrestment, Bill of Exchange, Sequestration Actor George Anne Bellamy granted four promissory notes to pursuer Hugh Baillie but failed to make timely payments. Subsequently, Bellamy and actor West Digges granted Baillie a bond of corroboration, promising to pay the accumulated debt. Bellamy and Digges again failed to make all necessary payments, and Digges was charged with horning. Digges obtained a suspension of the charge, but while the suit was pending, Digges went to England, where Baillie had him arrested. Digges, Baillie, and defender John Bland then entered into an agreement in which Digges and Bland agreed to pay the remaining debt. Bland granted Baillie two notes for 50 l. each, but payment was refused on one of them. Baillie protested the note, and Bland brought a bill of suspension. Bland argued that Baillie’s decision to effect Digges’s imprisonment constituted contempt of the Scottish Court. He also argued that the agreement among Digges, Bland, and Baillie was obtained metu carceris—that is, in fear of prison—and therefore was not actionable at law.
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.
Inglis v. Gray 1785 Tack, Lease, Sequestration, Title, Infeftment, Removing This case was about defender Walter Gray’s tack on the estate of Langwell. Shortly after Walter agreed to the tack, his brother William purchased Langwell. William granted bonds over the estate to Hugh Inglis and John Cartier as security for certain debts. Later, Inglis and Carter initiated court proceedings involving the property, which was sequestered under the supervision of a factor. Inglis also sought to void Walter’s tack or have Walter removed from the estate. Inglis alleged that Walter’s rent was far below the value of the property as stated on a rent roll that Walter had endorsed. Inglis also claimed that the tack would expire soon and that Walter was in arrears on his rent. Walter objected that Inglis’s security right, unlike a full property right, did not entitle him to challenge the tack or remove a tenant; when Inglis attempted to add the factor as a pursuer, Walter argued that this was a procedural irregularity. Walter also argued that William had granted him a new lease and that he was not in arrears on rent.
Inglis v. Lord Dreghorn's Interlocutor 1789 Aliment, Oath, Arrestment, Creditor, Advocation, Sequestration John Inglis petitioned the Court to alter Lord Dreghorn's interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Irving v. Lowther 1765 Rent, Sequestration, Possession, Tack, Removing, Bankruptcy John Irving, feuar in Dornock and brother-german and heir to William Irving, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor against George Lowther, portioner of Dornock. Lowther answered, claiming active title to remove sub-tenants who held only from him and contending that their lease from a factor was invalid.
Isabel Howison v. John Howison 1784 Debt, Cautioner, Bill of Exchange, Sequestration, Prescription, Security Three men granted a bill to Stephen Howison, the late father of pursuer Isobel Howison. Additionally, John Howison of Hyndford, defender, wrote Stephen a letter promising that the bill would be paid. Later, Isobel sued John for payment. In response, John argued that the action was barred by a six-year limitation on bills and a seven-year limitation on liability for cautioners.
Jack and Others v. Murdoch, Fearns and Company 1795 Insurance, Bill of Exchange, Adjudication, Debt, Sequestration, Oath Digitization and description in progress.
James Blyth v. Maberly's Assignees 1832 Bankruptcy, Interdict, Sequestration, Arrestment, Debt, Creditor James Blyth, as agent for John Maberly and Company and as holder of funds belonging to the firm, raised an action of multiplepoinding against Maberly's assignees to require them to produce their rights to the fund in his custody, while simultaneously seeking suspension of a warrant of seizure obtained by the assignees from the English bankruptcy court. The assignees demanded delivery of the property, disputing interdicts and asserting exclusive bankruptcy jurisdiction over all assets, and subsequently argued that the multiplepoinding was incompetent and unnecessary because the question of possession was already properly raised under the bill of suspension. The dispute thus centered on the conflict between Scottish multiplepoinding procedure and English bankruptcy jurisdiction.
James Bruce v. James Hogg 1790 Election contest, Adjudication, Sequestration, Election, Aliment, Member of Parliament James Bruce, a tailor in Anstruther Easter, petitioned the Court against James Hogg, seeking a finding that the Town Council had wrongfully elected Hogg as a Counsellor in place of Bruce, who had been legally elected and accepted. Hogg answered that Bruce’s election was void and that the vacancy had been properly filled. Bruce, joined by other Counsellors and Magistrates of the burgh, replied, defending his own election and challenging the validity of Hogg’s interim election on the grounds of statutory time limits and lack of prior notice.
James Buchanan and John Auld v. Adam Grant 1784 Debt, Arrestment, Succession, Sequestration, Trustee, Confirmation This case was about the payment of a decedent’s debts. James Buchanan and John Auld, pursuers, were creditors to an estate under the supervision of a factor, William Galdie. According to the pursuers, William died owing a balance to the estate. To recover the balance, the pursuers attempted to arrest funds in the hands of William’s creditors, including defenders Adam Grant and John Wood. However, these arrestments were ineffective because the defenders had already distributed most of William’s funds at the direction of his general disponee, George Galdie. The pursuers argued that these distributions could not defeat their claims, because George lacked the legal title necessary to order them. The pursuers also claimed that the payments were part of a scheme to favor certain creditors.
James Duff and William Duff v. Laurence Sutherland 1793 Arrestment, Decreet-Arbitral, Debt, Assignation, Magistrate, Sequestration James Duff in Nethertown and William Duff in Hillockhead of Glass pursued Laurence Sutherland, bailie of Elgin, for obstructing the execution of a caption and withholding consigned money and papers. The complainers asked the court to remit the bailie’s conduct, while Sutherland defended his refusal to incarcerate the debtor and retain the funds, asserting that the complaint was incompetent and that his actions were proper given the complainers’ unlawful proceedings and acquiescence in their own error. He further answered claims of damages and wrongful seizure, maintaining that his conduct had been justified under the circumstances.
James Edmonstone v. William Jackson 1779 Abandonment, Ships, Insurance, Bankruptcy, Sequestration, Property In April 1776, John Walker & Company freighted the Duntreath with a load of coal, deliverable to Alexander-John Alexander of Grenada. Upon the Duntreath's arrival in Grenada, Bartlet, Campbell, & Company freighted it for a journey to Florida. In August 1776, after stopping on the St. Johns River, the Duntreath's captain James Edmonstone was captured by rebels and carried to Savannah. Now under the command of James Crichton, on its journey back to Grenada, the Duntreath was captured by the privateer ship Tyrannicide, but then recaptured and brought to New York for repairs. In January 1778, the Duntreath set out for Grenada again, but was captured by another rebel ship, the Three Sisters, before being recaptured and brought to Grenada. When no appearance was made to reclaim the Duntreath, Grenada's Vice-Admiralty Court had it auctioned. The owners of the Duntreath then made a claim to its insurance underwriters for a total loss, however the underwriters argued that because the auction money was deposited with Grenada's Vice-Admiralty Court, it was merely a partial loss. After the High Court of Admiralty found their case ineffectual, the ship's owners appealed to the Court of Session. Lord Gardenstone reported their bill, but the Court ruled it outside of their jurisdiction. Their bill was later remitted to Lord Braxfield, however, who reported it again; the Court then determined that the pursuers could only claim a partial loss.
James Goodfellow v. Andrew Madder 1785 Debt, Arrestment, Bill of Exchange, Sequestration, Tack, Fraud James Goodfellow charged Andrew Madder for payment of a bill. Madder alleged that the bill had been given for no value and sought to have Goodfellow judicially examined. Goodfellow contested Madder’s claim and argued that his allegation could only be proved by a writing.
James Henderson v. William Scott 1792 Arrestment, Sequestration, Aliment, Interlocutor, Jurisdiction, Damages James Henderson raised an action against William Scott, alleging that the defender had unlawfully detained his property and imprisoned him without warrant. Scott, acting in his capacity as Procurator-Fiscal, laid an information contending that the defender had acted unlawfully in detaining a ring found in Berwick.
James Lee v. The Executors of Robert Watson 1794 Debt, Bankruptcy, Creditor, Aliment, Sequestration, Succession James Lee pursued the executors of Robert Watson for payment of a deed of provision he had purchased at public roup from the creditors of a bankrupt. Jean Watson petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor and remit the claim against her for the unpaid moiety of her provision, and the executors separately petitioned for alteration of the same interlocutor. Lee argued that retention of the provision for Mrs. Lumsdain’s aliment was not competent against the creditors of her bankrupt husband.

Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 2528)