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
James Sinclair v. Robert Anderson and Others 1771 Liferent, Succession, Sequestration, Assignment, Fiar, Contract of marriage In 1705, James Fraser concluded a marriage contract with Margaret Torry, the daughter of John Torry, who held lands and tenants in Elgin. Margaret was heir to her father's property, and the marriage contract granted James the right to the rents, fees, duties, etc. of the Elgin tenants for his life should Margaret pre-decease him. Margaret and James had three children, and by the time of this lawsuit only their daughter, Margaret Fraser, remained alive. In the 1720s, James's financial affairs began to fall in disarray and he attempted to sell his wife's heritable lands, triggering a series of legal disputes resulting in the land's sequestration. After the death of James and his eldest son, John, James's creditors laid claim to the Elgin rents and fees. James Sinclair challenged the creditors in the Court of Session, arguing that his grandfather's right to his grandmother's heritable lands ceased with his death, devolved on his now dead uncle, and subsequently now fell to his mother. In other words, the heritable lands ceased to be part of James Fraser's estate when he died and reverted to his wife's estate, subsequently inherited by her children. Sinclair contended that as the heritable lands constituted part of James Fraser's estate in life only, his creditors had no claim to them after his death. The Court of Session agreed and found for James Sinclair.
James Turnbull and Malcolm Macdonald v. Sir George Home, Baronet 1793 Jurisdiction, Suspension, Arrestment, Proof, Sequestration, Interdict James Turnbull and Malcolm Macdonald, as suspenders, sought to compel their bound apprentice Alexander M'Kenzie to return to service and argued that he could not legally enter His Majesty's Fleet as a volunteer. Sir George Home, Baronet, maintained that a seaman formerly apprenticed to a slater might lawfully serve in the Fleet notwithstanding the opposition of his former masters. The dispute turned on whether an apprentice bound to a slater could voluntarily enter naval service or remained subject to his masters' claim for specific performance of the indenture.
Jameson v. The Paisley Banking company 1797 Debt, Bankruptcy, Property, Sequestration, Creditor, Agent Robert Jameson, trustee of the sequestrated estate of Alexander Birnie, sought to alter an interlocutor that had declared cash and bank notes found in Birnie's private desk to be the property of the Paisley Banking Company, contending that these funds formed part of the bankrupt estate. The Bank and its cashier answered the petition, defending their title to the money discovered in the possession of their former agent.
Jamieson, et al v. Andrew, et al 1786 Bankruptcy, Debt, Sequestration, Creditor, Aliment, Factor John Jamieson and other creditors of Gavin Kempt petitioned the Court to overturn the election of James Campbell as interim factor, alleging that James Kempt’s creditor claim—which supported his vote in that election—was fraudulent and self-serving. George Andrew, as factor for Henry Greig, James Kempt, and other creditors of Gavin Kempt, answered the petition, defending the validity of Kempt’s vote.
Jesson v. Gray, Rector of the School of Coupar 1778 Rector, Adjudication, Aliment, Arrestment, Sequestration, Election In 1775, George Gray was elected rector of the Cupar grammar school, vested with the power to appoint and dismiss his assistants at will. In November 1777, Gray dismissed John Jesson, second doctor of the school. According to Jesson the town council was widely displeased with Gray's conduct and indeed, around this time a "lawless mob" descended upon Gray's residence and broke his windows. Nevertheless, Gray petitioned the Sheriff of Fife to compel Jesson to leave his post. The Sheriff cited Jesson to appear, and Jesson then submitted his case to the Court. Lord Gardenstone passed the bill, and after Gray produced letters from members of the town council assenting to the dismissal, Lord Monboddo found that Jesson was properly dismissed. Jesson petitioned the Court for review. His advocate, William Craig, wrote that if any master knew before taking up a position that he would be “subjected to the arbitrary and capricious will of the head-master, no person of spirit would undertake the office. Such as did undertake it, would be put into a slavish and dependent situation, incompatible with that liberality of mind so essential in the teachers of youth.” The Court refused Jesson's petition.
John Beadie v. The Other Creditors of Thomas Heggie 1748 Debt, Sequestration, Oath, Creditor, Arrestment, Trustee Thomas Heggie, joined by a group of his creditors, obtained a sequestration of his bankrupt estate. As required by statute, the sequestration was based on the oaths of creditors whose debts amounted to a specified sum. Subsequently, a different creditor petitioned the court to recall the sequestration, on the ground that one of the oaths had been false. The creditors who obtained the sequestration argued that it could not be recalled on that basis.
John C. Farquharson v. John Thomson (Trustee of Mason, Baird, and Co.) 1832 Bankruptcy, Debt, Sequestration, Creditor, Trustee, Fraud
John Finlay and Trustees v. Robert Finlay and Trustees 1772 Debt, Copartnership, Bankruptcy, Aliment, Arrestment, Sequestration John Finlay, pursuer, was the son of Robert Finlay, defender. John and Robert operated a shoe factory in Glasgow as a partnership. Robert owned two-thirds interest and John owned one-third. The partnership experienced financial difficulty and was placed in trusteeship. John's trustees sued Robert's trustees to see if Robert owed any money to John from the venture. Robert insisted that he did not owe any money and sought certain documents and books from the partnership.
John Kelly v. John Smith 1780 Statute, Property, Sequestration, Tack, Regalia, Heritor John Kelly, huntsman to Major Blair of Blair, brought a complaint against John Smith for hunting without the proper qualification. Smith argued that he satisfied the only statutory qualification that was currently in effect. The dispute raised a question of first impression as to the correct interpretation of certain statutes.
John Reid and Richard Thomson v. United Incorporation of Mary's Chapel 1792 Aliment, Sequestration, Interlocutor, Encroachment, Penalty, Suspension John Reid and Richard Thomson, masons and builders, and others, petitioned the Court to alter Lord Henderland's interlocutor in their action against the United Incorporation of Mary's Chapel. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
John Thomson v. David Miller 1782 Debt, Rent, Aliment, Lease, Arrestment, Sequestration Documents are available. Full case description coming soon.
Johnston v. Robertson 1784 Decreet-Arbitral, Rent, Aliment, Sequestration, Possession, Tack Defender Thomas Johnston of Templehall obtained a tack of Prenderguest from Robert Robertson. The tack contained a clause allowing Robert to retake possession of forty acres in the event that he decided to build a house and offices on it. After granting the tack, Robert transferred the lands to his son Alexander, who sought to invoke this clause. A dispute arose between Alexander and Johnston, and the case was submitted to arbiters. Robert, the father, then raised an action before the Sheriff of Berwickshire seeking immediate possession of forty acres; his son Alexander was subsequently added as pursuer. Johnston argued that under a decree pronounced by the arbiters, Alexander could not take possession of the full forty acres until he had actually built a house.
Jowett, et al v. Wooley & Maidment 1797 Debt, Arrestment, Sequestration, Creditor, Bankruptcy, Aliment Wooley and Maidment, as respondents, contested the debt-related arrest and flight charge brought by Jowett and his co-petitioners, claiming their detention was unlawful despite multiple warrants and asserting that they lacked fugitive status after forty days abroad. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Kincaid v. Lord Justic Clerk's Interlocutor 1808 Sequestration, Bill of Exchange, Diligence, Oath, Cautioner, Fraud Kincaid sought suspension of a charge brought against him upon a bill, alleging that the drawer had already paid the debt and that the charger and drawer had fraudulently attempted to extort double payment. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Laidlaw v. Elliot 1797 Aliment, Sequestration, Feu, Tack, Glebe, Manse To provide the minister of Peebles with a grass glebe, the presbytery appropriated a small field that was held in feu by the pursuer, William Laidlaw. The field was part of a tract commonly understood to have been the vicar’s glebe before church lands fell to the sovereign at the Reformation. While not contesting the appropriation of his land, Mr. Laidlaw claimed that certain statutes entitled him to relief from the heritors of all other church lands within the parish. However, Ann Elliot argued that only heritors of the vicar’s glebe were required to contribute. The court found that Act 1594, c. 202, provided a general right of relief from heritors of church lands in the parish.
Laing v. Watson and Mollison 1788 Debt, Arrestment, Sequestration, Creditor, Cautioner, Bankruptcy Patrick Laing, tanner and burgess of Brechin, pursued Watson and Mollison, arguing that he had been wrongfully imprisoned and that the defenders acted with malice and without legal justification. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Lamont v. Ewing 1792 Arrestment, Debt, Jurisdiction, Theft, Sequestration, Aliment Thomas Ewing, defender, petitioned the Court to overturn the interlocutor of the Lord Justice-Clerk, which found the water-bailie of Glasgow competent to hear the pursuer Lamont’s civil action for stolen goods. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Leggat v. Inner-House Interlocutor 1787 Debt, Sequestration, Adjudication, Rent, Power of Attorney, Tack David Leggat petitioned the Court of Session to alter its recent interlocutor, raising the question of whether the Court should modify its prior order. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Leslie v. Brodie, et al 1792 Sequestration, Wadset, Disposition, Succession, Infeftment, Feu duties Reverend William Leslie, minister of the United Parishes of St. Andrews and Langbride, petitioned the court challenging his removal from the parliamentary roll by James Brodie, Alexander Penrose Cumming of Altyre, and other freeholders of the County of Elgin and Forres, who answered that his title was merely nominal and had been abandoned for an inconsistent grant from Lord Fife. Leslie replied asserting an unaltered freeholder qualification held continuously since 1774, and the respondents duplicated, maintaining that the qualification was nominal and fictitious.
Low v. Knowles 1796 Rent, Sequestration, Tack, Assignation, Caution, Lease Andrew Knowles defended an action by John Low and John Richardson regarding rent obligations under the Act of Sederunt 1756, maintaining that he was not liable for the full rent in light of prior payments and the pursuers' conduct. He further alleged that Low had failed to pay rents and had caused ruin to the farm, and that the caution found was insufficient to secure future rents. Knowles also petitioned against a Sheriff's interlocutor requiring double caution for the same rents, arguing that such a requirement was unjust and contrary to the spirit of the Act.
M'Callum, et al v. Hunter, et al 1786 Debt, Fraud, Creditor, Insurance, Reduction, Sequestration The creditors of Kenneth M'Callum pursued Robert Hunter and other London underwriters to recover the sum insured on the ship *New York*. The underwriters alleged that the vessel had been wilfully destroyed by its owners to defraud them and resisted payment. The creditors maintained that the policy remained valid and that M'Callum bore no liability for the loss.
M'Tier v. Lord Stonefield's Interlocutor 1789 Tack, Lease, Arrestment, Sequestration, Reparation, Bankruptcy John M'Tier petitioned to alter Lord Stonefield's interlocutor, which held him liable for rebuilding the byre and kiln at Chang and for the value of moveable goods carried away. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
MacHutcheon v. Welsh 1793 Bankruptcy, Debt, Arrestment, Creditor, Sequestration, Bill of Exchange Hugh M'Hutcheon, trustee upon the sequestrated estate of John Tait, pursued Robert Welsh and Thomas Copland regarding payments received from Tait, disputing whether these transactions were void under the statute of 1696. Welsh and Copland argued that the remittances were made before sequestration and thus not void, while M'Hutcheon contended that the bills fell under the act as they were received after Tait's notour bankruptcy. After the Court pronounced an interlocutor against the defenders, they petitioned for its alteration, which M'Hutcheon opposed by asserting that Tait had been bankrupt and the bills were covered by the 1696 statute.
Mackay and Fullerton v. Dalrymples et al 1795 Succession, Possession, Reduction, Entail, Prescription, Sequestration Mrs Marianne Mackay, subsequently the Honourable Mrs Hamilton Fullarton, and her husband Colonel William Fullarton pursued Sir Hew Hamilton Dalrymple and other representatives of the Dalrymple family regarding succession to the estate of Bargeny, asserting rights as nearest substitutes under a 1688 marriage contract and entail which provided for female-line succession, while the defenders claimed title under a 1742 charter and seisin. The litigation involved petitions for sequestration of the estate, disputes over the custody of title-deeds and the removal of seals from estate repositories, and exchanges regarding the pursuers' standing to displace the defenders as heirs-apparent, the validity of a plea of minority, and allegations of contravention of irritant clauses. The pursuers sought to compel production of writings relied upon by the defenders and to conjoin reduction and declarator processes to ascertain their position under the entail, while the defenders maintained their lawful possession and disputed the pursuers' entitlement to the succession.
Macqueen v. Fleming 1798 Arrestment, Debt, Interlocutor, Caution, Creditor, Sequestration Charles Macqueen, as pursuer, petitioned the Court to remit to the Magistrates of Dundee with instructions to liberate him from jail without further caution, alleging that his life was in extreme danger. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Macwhinnie v. Burton 1795 Debt, Creditor, Adjudication, Bankruptcy, Sequestration, Trustee Andrew M'Whinnie, common agent in the ranking of the creditors of Alexander Hooks, petitioned the Court to alter the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor reducing his adjudication in totum on the ground of pluris petitio. Alexander Burton defended his interest against M'Whinnie's objections regarding pluris petitio and trustee status, submitting replies and information arguing that the reduction was justified by M'Whinnie's improper conduct and concealment of payments rather than by innocent mistake.
Magistrates and Town-Council of the Burgh of Inverkeithing v. Graham 1789 Lease, Tack, Rent, Charter, Sequestration, Privilege The Magistrates and Town-Council of the Burgh of Inverkeithing pursued George Graham of Kinross for payment of £23 sterling yearly for the customs of the town under the roup of January 1785. They also reclaimed an interlocutor that had granted Graham the sole right to the fairs and markets customs, asserting the burgh’s historic entitlement to levy those same dues.
Manderson v Dickson 1793 Debt, Arrestment, Creditor, Sequestration, Bill of Exchange, Assignation George Manderson reclaimed against Lord Abercromby's interlocutor in his action against Dickson for wrongful imprisonment and damages. The respondents denied liability, attributing the litigation to vexatious conduct by the Manderson brothers and contending that the calculations of damages were frivolous.
Margaret Scruton v. John Gray 1772 Marriage, Jurisdiction, Alimony, Aliment, Arrestment, Sequestration Gray, defender, was a native of Cork, Ireland who attended university in Scotland. Scruton, pursuer, claimed that she and Gray married in Glasgow while he was attending college there. Scruton sought a "decree of declarator" from the Commissary Court of Edinburgh to find them to be husband and wife. (Commissary Courts were established in Scotland in the 1560s and had exclusive jurisdiction in marriage and divorce cases.) Scruton also sought alimony from Gray. Gray denied that any marriage took place. There was no public solemnization of the marriage, nor any cohabitation as husband and wife. According to Gray, there was only a "private interview" between the two. Gray also denied that the Commissary Court of Edinburgh has jurisdiction over him since he was a foreigner.
Marshall v. Taylor 1796 Bankruptcy, Trustee, Disposition, Creditor, Sequestration, Fraud James Marshall, Writer to the Signet and trustee, challenged a preference claimed by Taylor and Smith over the proceeds of the lands of Dubhall and Auld's Acre from a bankrupt estate, asserting that the bankrupt held no valid title at the time of the bond. After the Court sustained the respondents' claim by interlocutor, Marshall petitioned to have that decision altered. The respondents opposed the petition as an irregular and belated reclaiming motion, arguing it was barred by acquiescence and prior litigation.
Marshall, Hamilton, and Company v. John Crawford and John Barns 1786 Insurance, Bill of Exchange, Suspension, Adjudication, Deviation, Sequestration This case was about the interpretation of two insurance policies taken out by Messrs Marshall, Hamilton, and Company on the ship Ceres. One of those policies covered the Ceres and its freight until the ship reached its “port or ports of discharge in the West Indies”; the other policy covered the Ceres and a subset of its freight, a load of fish, until the ship reached “a market in the West Indies.” In Spring of 1784, the Ceres sailed from Greenock, Scotland, carrying beef, coal, and dry goods. The ship went first to St. John’s, Newfoundland, where it picked up the load of fish, and subsequently to the Caribbean, where it discharged the fish. The shipmaster, George Jamieson, then began taking steps to obtain a return freight to Britain. In the course of his efforts to obtain a return freight, Jamieson sailed to Jamaica and moored the Ceres in Morant Bay. There, the ship was wrecked in a hurricane. At the time of the wreck, the Ceres still contained beef, coal, and dry goods. Based on these facts, a dispute arose between Marshall, Hamilton, and Co. and its underwriters about whether, prior to the hurricane, the ship’s outward voyage had terminated under the terms of each insurance policy.
Maxwell and McCrerick v. Murdoch 1788 Arrestment, Creditor, Trustee, Sequestration, Prescription, Debt John Maxwell and John M'Crerick petitioned the Court against Lord Ankerville’s interlocutors, craving alteration of the arrestment preference granted to John Murdoch and remission of their expenses. Murdoch answered, defending his right to the preference against the objections raised by the pursuers.
Maxwell v. Lord Swinton's Interlocutor 1789 Arrestment, Action, Sequestration, Creditor, Mala Fides, Citation Charles Maxwell-Campbell petitioned the Court of Session to alter an interlocutor issued by Lord Swinton. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
McGowan v. Inner-House Interlocutor 1788 Bankruptcy, Debt, Arrestment, Sequestration, Creditor, Bill of Lading Pursuer William McGowan petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
McLean v. McArthur 1787 Aliment, Proof, Sequestration, Tack, Glebe, Interlocutor Allan M'Lean of Drimnin, Suspender, alleged the unlawful seizure of the Killean estate for glebe and manse on the false claim that the lands were church-lands, asserting that records showed Crown ward status and that the parish's centrality was disputed. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Mead v. Swinton 1796 Succession, Terce, Possession, Sequestration, Interlocutor, Adjudication Lady Hannay claimed that as a widow she was entitled to the worst of two mansion-houses on the estate of Kirkdale as an appendage to her terce. The common agent maintained that she had no claim to a second mansion-house over and above her terce.
Miller v. Angelo-Tremamondo 1771 Obligations under contract of marriage, Debt, Aliment, Arrestment, Succession, Sequestration Philip Miller performed a surgery on Francis Angelo-Tremamondo, which saved his sight. They became good friends. Francis Angelo-Tremamondo convinced Miller to marry his only daughter, Mary Tremamondo-Angelo. After the marriage, Mr. Millar brought an action against Francis Angelo-Tremamondo because he breached the marriage contract. He had agreed to give to the pursuer a diamond ring, to furnish a house for the new couple, among another things. The agreement and the promises were not in writing. The pursuer tried to enforce Mr. Angelo-Tremamondo's promises. The defender maintained that since the promises alleged were given verbally they could not be substantiated by other witnesses.
Miss Margaret Littlejohn, and Others v. James Hamilton 1832 Sequestration, Creditor, Trustee, Debt, Factor, Trust Miss Margaret Littlejohn and others pursued James Hamilton of Kames for sequestration of the rents of his estate and the appointment of a judicial factor. Hamilton answered, arguing that sequestration was unnecessary and incompetent in view of an existing trust arrangement. Heritable creditors subsequently petitioned for authority to let lands in Hamilton's personal possession or for sequestration of the whole estate, and Hamilton filed further answers responding to the application.
Moir v. Callender 1796 Aliment, Arrestment, Sequestration, Interlocutor, Diligence, Process Defender William Callender answered the petition and complaint of pursuers John Moir and William Allister, asserting that his conduct was lawful and the petition ill-founded. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Monro v. Sutherlands and Sutherland 1793 Debt, Creditor, Reduction, Rent, Aliment, Sequestration William Ross Monro pursued an action against the heirs of John Sutherland and Ann Ross regarding debts Monro had owed to his uncle. William Ross of Aldie submitted a memorial arguing that the Court should not revive the tenor of unproduced obligations without proof of a special casus amissionis. The respondents challenged a decree in the suit, maintaining that prescription and a prior settlement barred the claim.
Muirhead, Hay and Company v. Dunmore 1797 Debt, Creditor, Bankruptcy, Arrestment, Sequestration, Jurisdiction Digitization and description in progress.
Muirhead, Hay, and Company v. Dunmore 1792 Debt, Creditor, Sequestration, Interest, Interlocutor, Prescription Muirhead, Hay, and Company, merchants in Glasgow, pursued Robert Dunmore for payment of debts contracted in Virginia, contending that Dunmore was liable as a partner of Logan, Gilmour, and Company. Dunmore defended the action on the grounds that the debts were prescribed, lacked proper documentary support, and were improperly pursued following forfeiture in Virginia.
Munro v. Robertson 1778 Adjudication, Arrestment, Sequestration, Sasine, Interlocutor, Infeftment Pursuer George Munro petitioned the Court, in the action against defender Robertson, for permission to use his inhibitions on three debts to draw payment from the parcel of lands where infeftment followed, rather than his arrestments. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Murray and Creditors vs. Blair and Creditors 1793 Bankruptcy, Ranking of Creditors, Debt, Creditor, Sequestration, Adjudication
Nairne v. Cranstoun 1795 Debt, Bankruptcy, Sequestration, Creditor, Bill of Exchange, Promissory note Alexander Nairne, trustee for the sequestrated estate of Peter and Francis Forrester, opposed Thomas Cranstoun’s petition to alter Lord Methven’s interlocutor and rank A. Laidlaw’s undiscounted bills in the estate. Nairne contended that Laidlaw’s failure to discount the bills forfeited double-ranking rights, while Cranstoun sought the alteration to allow the ranking. The respondent argued that the transaction between Forrester and Laidlaw constituted an equal exchange of obligations and that the interlocutor should not be altered.
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.
Newton v. Anderson 1733 Adjudication, Cautioner, Sequestration, Interlocutor, Factor, Ranking and Sale Abraham Newton and John Newton petitioned the Court to recall a Decreet of Ranking and remit the Complaint against Anderson to be heard. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Oliphant and Husband v. Oliphant 1792 Succession, Aliment, Adjudication, Sequestration, Debt, Creditor Oliphant and Husband petitioned to void a bond granting full rent to two sisters, arguing that it unfairly excluded younger children and exceeded the tailzie’s authority. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Palmer and Others v. Macmillan 1794 Interlocutor, Advocation, Contract, Property, Sequestration, Rent Palmer and Others, as defenders, argued that the Court of Session should affirm a Sheriff's interlocutor prohibiting Macmillan from exposing butcher-meat in front of his house. They presented information maintaining that the prohibition ought to be upheld.
Patrick Cunninghame v. The Magistrates and Town-Council of Edinburgh 1800 Aliment, Stipend, Sequestration, Teinds, Patronage, Debt The Magistrates and Town-Council of Edinburgh resolved to make St. Andrew’s Church a collegiate charge and to appoint the Reverend David Ritchie as second minister. Pursuer Patrick Cunningham, a dissenting council member, presented a bill of suspension against the resolution, arguing that the City could not afford the measure and that the appointment was unnecessary. The Defenders answered that the new appointment was proper and necessary.

Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 2528)