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
Petition of Robert Gibbon 1787 Debt, Assignation, Creditor, Ranking of Creditors, Bill of Exchange, Sequestration Robert Gibbon, merchant in Aberdeen, petitioned the Court of Session to alter its recent interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Principal Clerks of Session v. Charles Steuart 1788 Sequestration, Aliment, Succession, Creditor, Mala Fides, Arrestment The Principal Clerks of Session brought a penal action against Charles Steuart, as heir of the late John Steuart, seeking to hold him liable for his father’s neglect of duty in preserving extracted decreets and their warrants. Steuart argued that he ought to be assoilzied from the charge, while the pursuers maintained that he was bound as heir to indemnify them for the expenses and damages arising from his father’s failure.
Ramsay v. Lister 1787 Arrestment, Creditor, Diligence, Sequestration, Debt, Assignation James Lister, Tackman of Pitlessie Mill, as defender, answered the petition of John Ramsay, Brewer in Letham, pursuer, responding to claims of dereliction and mora in arrestment diligence. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Ramsays v. The Magistrates and Town-Council of Edinburgh 1792 Sequestration, Aliment, Trustees, Trust, Tax, Public Works John Ramsay pursued the Magistrates and Town-Council of Edinburgh, contending that the defenders were bound by statute to take three shops and pay their value or assess recompense. The defenders answered that the pursuer's claim for damages was incompetent and premature under the statute. The case turned on whether the statutory provisions obliged the town to acquire the shops and compensate the pursuer, and whether the remedy was properly raised.
Richard Thomson v. Messrs Douglas, Heron, and Company 1785 Debt, Trust, Sequestration, Fraud, Reduction, Security Richard Thomson of Crowdieknowes transferred his lands to David Armstrong of Kirtleton "heritably and irredeemably," with the qualification that such lands should be sold for Thomson's benefit. Armstrong obtained a charter for the lands without recording the qualification. Armstrong subsequently conveyed the lands to Douglas, Heron, and Company to secure his own debt, and other creditors of Armstrong adjudged the lands. Thomson then initiated a court action to void Armstrong's right to the lands on the ground of fraud. Armstrong's creditors, including Douglas, Heron, and Company, appeared in the suit to defend their interest. Thomson argued that Armstrong held the lands in trust and therefore lacked the power to act as proprietor. In response, the creditors argued that they were entitled to rely on the relevant land records.
Ritchie v. Lauder 1795 Debt, Bankruptcy, Creditor, Aliment, Arrestment, Sequestration The pursuer Ritchie, in the interest of the creditors of Peter Logan, sought to set aside a preference granted to Colin Lauder, surgeon of the Sutherland Regiment of Fencibles, as fraudulent. Lauder petitioned the Court to remit the interlocutor of which he complained and to supersede extract until the following January. The creditors subsequently informed the Court that the preference was fraudulent and ought to be reduced.
Robb v. Trustee 1793 Succession, Aliment, Creditor, Trustee, Debt, Sequestration Mrs. Agnes Robb sought aliment from the sequestrated estate of her husband William Robb, pleading that she had brought a pre-marital fortune to the marriage, had been deserted by her insolvent husband, and had suffered improper sale of her property. Walter Ewing MacLae, trustee of the estate, answered her petition, whereupon Mrs. Robb replied correcting factual errors and insisting upon her right to retain the annual produce of her estate for her aliment. She subsequently petitioned the Court to alter a recent interlocutor.
Robert Carrick v. John Carse 1777 Cautioner, Debt, Aliment, Arrestment, Sequestration, Assignation Pursuer Robert Carrick was cautioner on a bond granted by Robert Robb to John Carse, William Stirling, and George Bogle. After Robb became bankrupt, Carse demanded payment from Carrick, who complied. The next day, however, Carrick requested a refund on the grounds that he had mistakenly repaid the bond. He argued that his duty to pay was extinguished by a statute that limited the obligation of cautioners to seven years. Carse refused to provide a refund, and Carrick sued. In his defense, Carse argued that although Carrick’s legal obligation had ended, Carrick still had an equitable obligation to pay. Carse further argued that there was no excuse at law for Carrick’s erroneous payment.
Robertson and Farquharson v. Cameron, et al 1786 Arrestment, Aliment, Sequestration, Creditor, Defamation, Damages The defenders Daniel Cameron, Joseph Fyfe, James Boyd, and Thomas Miller filed an information arguing that the pursuers Robertson and Farquharson were unlawfully detained in prison after being apprehended for attempted robbery. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Robertson v. Gray 1781 Fraud, Tack, Bankruptcy, Rent, Sequestration, Debt In this case, the trustees for the creditors of Richard Cameron asked the court to void a tack granted by Cameron to his brother-in-law Andrew Gray. The trustees alleged that Cameron had granted the tack while insolvent, and that he had agreed to a price that was lower than the land’s market value. Andrew Gray, the tacksman, disputed these points. He further argued that the tack was necessary because Cameron had planned to go to Virginia. Case documents include a proof containing numerous depositions.
Robertson v. Robertson and Miller 1782 Rents, Debt, Aliment, Arrestment, Bill of Exchange, Sequestration This case involved a dispute over bills obtained as payment at a debtor’s auction. David Miller, one of the defenders, was a tenant of Major General John Scott of Balcomie. After General Scott died, William Robertson, the pursuer, became the factor for Scott’s minor children. In this capacity, William obtained a warrant to sell Miller’s crops, stock, and farm implements as payment and security for overdue rent. An auction was held, giving rise to a dispute over certain bills that were collected as payment for crops. The bills in question had been given by Miller to one Thomas Robertson, his man of business and creditor. William Robertson sued Miller and Thomas Robertson for possession of the bills. Although Thomas Robertson eventually handed them over, he and Miller were found jointly liable for the balance of rent due, plus litigation expenses. William Robertson argued that this was just, because they had wrongfully deprived him of security for the rent. Miller and Thomas Robertson raised different arguments in response: Miller argued that he was entitled to certain deductions from the rent claimed by William Robertson, while Thomas Robertson argued that he was not a tenant and had not otherwise bound himself to pay the rent. Both Thomas and Miller argued that they should not be found liable for expenses.
Ross v. Woodman 1770 Employment, Debt, Aliment, Arrestment, Succession, Sequestration Pursuer David Ross was the manager of the Theatre-Royal of Edinburgh. Defender Esther Woodman was an actress in the theatre's productions. Esther entered into an employment contract with Ross after receiving her husband's (Thomas Woodman) consent. Ross eventually fired Esther Woodman because she refused to take on certain roles in the plays and did not show up to rehearsals. Following her dismissal, Esther and Thomas Woodman brought an action against Ross before the sheriff of Edinburgh, seeking a weekly salary for the term of Esther's employment contract. Ross maintained that Esther was justly and properly dismissed based on her improper conduct, and that she was not entitled to her weekly salary under the employment contract.
Rutherford v. Rutherford and Potts 1788 Arrestment, Sequestration, Hypothec, Debt, Rent, Cautioner Jane Rutherford, widow of Robert Robson, petitioned the Court to alter Lord Hailes’s interlocutor regarding the Sheriff’s refusal to grant advocation. The respondents, Rutherford and Potts, defended that refusal and asserted their preference over rent arrears and crop proceeds from 1783 roup sales.
Samuel Cole, &c v. Ephraim Flamare, &c 1772 Debt, Bankruptcy, Arrestment, Sequestration, Statute, Mandate Samuel Cole, pursuer, was a silk-weaver based in London. Some of his silk (worth £3,000 Sterling) was stored in a warehouse in Canongate, a district of Edinburgh. Cole declared bankruptcy. Shortly after this, Flammare, defender and creditor of Cole, went to Edinburgh to seize Cole's silk in Canongate by using an admiral-precept. William Cole, brother and creditor of Samuel Cole, along with other creditors of Samuel Cole, also took out an admiral-precept on Samuel Cole's effects in Edinburgh. These other creditors sought an equal distribution of Cole's property among the creditors. Flammare alleged, among other procedural defects, that the other creditors' application for sequestration was ineffective under the applicable bankruptcy statute because the case involved an English, not Scottish, debtor.
Samuel Hawkins, and Others, Personal Creditors of the late John, Earl of Glencairn v. Simon Taylor, and Others, Trustees of William Cunningham Cunningham Graham 1800 Entail, Debt, Liferent, Aliment, Arrestment, Sequestration This case was about the order in which creditors were entitled to claim rents from the estate of Finlaystone. Finlaystone had belonged to the late John Cunningham, Earl of Glencairn, whose personal creditors attached the rents from the estate. Additionally, the estate secured a heritable debt—similar to a mortgage—that was purchased by William Cunningham Cunningham Graham. Graham’s trustees claimed a preference over the rents, for payment of both the interest and principal of the heritable debt. However, Earl John’s creditors argued that because the heritable debt was secured by the whole estate, it was unnecessary to allocate rents toward its payment; doing so would operate to the prejudice of the other creditors. Earl John’s creditors further argued that if a heritable creditor exerted a preference over the rents, he should also be required to assign them a portion of his security.
Shepherd v. Lord Swinton's Interlocutor 1787 Arrestment, Interlocutor, Cautioner, Debt, Sequestration, Citation James Shepherd petitioned the Court to remit the Lord Ordinary's interlocutors pronounced against him. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Sir T. J. Inglis Cochrane v. Bogle and Company 1832 Debt, Adjudication, Estate, Arrestment, Succession, Sequestration In an action raised by pursuer Sir T. J. Inglis Cochrane, defenders Robert Bogle & Company petitioned the Court to sequestrate the rents of the estate of Murdieston. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Smith v. Procurator Fiscal 1795 Jurisdiction, Interlocutor, Aliment, Arrestment, Sequestration, Statute Smith pursued the Procurator Fiscal to challenge the Justices of the Peace's prohibition on fares charged by the postmasters. The postmasters argued that the justices lacked jurisdiction to regulate their charges and that economic hardship entitled them to increase rates according to market conditions. They initially submitted a memorial asserting these claims and subsequently petitioned the Court of Session to overturn the fare ban on grounds of jurisdictional overreach.
Somerville v. Wilson 1766 Linen industry, Arrestment, Sequestration, Trustees, Forfeiture, Penalty In April 1765, the charger, Thomas Wilson, as Inspector of Yarn appointed by the Trustees for Improving Manufactures in Scotland, inspected a quantity of yarn owned by the suspender, Patrick Somerville, in an Edinburgh market waiting to be transported to Glasgow. Wilson determined that 32 of Somerville's 150 spindles were faulty in their manufacture, and he seized these spindles. Wilson brought action against Somerville before the Sheriff of Edinburgh, who condemned the 32 spindles and charged Somerville with a penalty, payable to Wilson. Somerville appealed the Sheriff's decision to the Court of Session, which overturned the fine but upheld the forfeiture of the yarn. In an effort to get his yarn back, Somerville argued that the seizure was unwarranted and illegally done. He claimed that the statues relative to the linen industry and improving manufacturing in Scotland were an encroachment on the liberty of individuals. Wilson's petition argued for the importance of inspections in order to counteract people like Somerville, working as hawkers, who dealt both in the spinning of yarn from flax and the purchasing of yarn to sell to manufactures. Wilson argued that these hawkers have been particularly active in Edinburgh selling yarn to Glasgow and Paisley and that their trade had provided regular cover to fraud in the making of yarn.
Stephen and others v. Duff and other Magistrates and Counsellors of the Burgh of Elgin 1771 Election contest, Burgh, Debt, Aliment, Sequestration, Bankruptcy This case concerns disputed elections for council in the Burgh of Elgin. John Duff, defender, and his group controlled the Burgh council up to the election in the Michaelmas 1770 term. Duff was provost of the burgh, with members of his group serving other positions on the council. In that 1770 election, Thomas Stephen, pursuer, won and became provost of the burgh of Elgin. Stephen was a member of a rival group. In the next election, the Michaelmas 1771 term, Duff and his group won the election and regained their positions on the council. Each group accused the other of resorting to riots, disturbances, bribery, and other improper means to affect the Michaelmas 1771 election.
Steuart v. Ramsden 1793 Sequestration, Penalty, Arrestment, Jurisdiction, Forfeiture, Debt Steuart pursued Ramsden to remit the seizure of effects from the sequestrated premises of James Hill, contending that Ramsden's poinding of the goods was illegal. Hill separately sought remission of penalties and forfeiture awarded by the Edinburgh Justices of Peace for alleged accounting breaches, which Ramsden defended as clear statutory violations warranting the assessed amounts. Ferguson petitioned to challenge both the legality of Ramsden's poinding and the jurisdiction of the Justices to impose penalties beyond the statutory limit, while Ramsden additionally sought review of an interlocutor regarding preference over the poinded effects in Hill's bankruptcy.
Stewart v. Inner-House Interlocutor 1798 Debt, Aliment, Arrestment, Stipend, Sequestration, Teinds William Stewart presented a reclaiming petition asking the Court to alter its recent interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Stewart, et al v. Lord Swinton's Interlocutor 1789 Arrestment, Sequestration, Debt, Assignation, Creditor, Disposition Stewart and others petitioned the Court to alter Lord Swinton’s interlocutor regarding the arrestment of goods held in trust for creditors. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
T. Mansfield (Stuart's Trustee) v. Walker's Trustees 1830 Sequestration, Bankruptcy, Trustee, Creditor, Sasine, Disposition Thomas Mansfield, as trustee upon the sequestrated estate of James Stuart, raised a summons of reduction against John Sutherland Sinclair and subsequently against Josiah Walker and the representatives of Professor Walker, contesting the defenders' assertion of a right to preference over the general body of creditors. The process was advanced to the record, after which Mansfield submitted a revised case maintaining that the defenders' claim to priority in the bankrupt estate was unfounded.
Tait v. White 1801 Aliment, Succession, Marriage, Creditor, Debt, Sequestration After Mary Tait’s husband William White left the country, Tait sought alimony from her father-in-law, George White. George, a small farmer, denied that he was obligated to support Tait and her infant child. He argued that this burden should fall on Tait's parish of residence, not solely on him, and that support obligations had only been extended to relatives in cases where a man of rank was required to provide for his heir. Tait argued that the duty to aliment children applied equally to all classes of society.
The Creditors of James Stein v. Newnham, Everett and Company 1792 Bankruptcy, Debt, Creditor, Infeftment, Sasine, Sequestration The creditors of James Stein, represented by David Steuart as trustee, pursued Newnham, Everett and Company regarding a heritable bond conveyed to the defenders as collateral security for a cash account. The trustee argued that the bond was ineffectual as to all sums because it constituted indefinite security for future advances, while the defenders maintained that it remained valid notwithstanding the bankrupt estate.
The Interim Factor on the Sequestrated Estate of Bertram, Gardner & Co v. David Thomson 1794 Debt, Bankruptcy, Hypothec, Sequestration, Mandate, Election contest Richard Hotchkis, as interim factor on the sequestrated estate of Bertram, Gardner & Co, petitioned the Court to ordain David Thomson to deliver up all writings in his possession belonging to the bankrupts, with reservation of Thomson's hypothec. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
The Magistrates, Town-Council, and Community of Dumbarton v. The Magistrates and Town-Council of the City of Glasgow 1771 Interpretation of acts of Parlament, Act of Parliament, Contract, Sequestration, Arrestment, Privilege In 1770, Parliament passed legislation for improving the navigation of the River Clyde to the city of Glasgow. The act empowered the Magistrates and Town-Council to repair and enlarge the quay on the north side of the river, and build a new one on the south side. The legislation allowed the Glaswegian magistrates to levy a duty on river traffic, to which the Magistrates and Community of Dumbarton claimed exemption based on a 1770 contract between the two burgs.
The Trustees for the Creditors of John Brough v. The Heirs of Robert Selby 1794 Bankruptcy, Debt, Creditor, Security, Cautioner, Sequestration The Trustees for the Creditors of John Brough pursued the Heirs of Robert Selby regarding the extent of security afforded by a heritable bond of relief granted by Brough in 1783. The Trustees contended that the bond secured the sum drawn at the date of seisin notwithstanding subsequent fluctuations in the cash account. The Heirs maintained that the bond subsisted only to the extent of the limited sum until the cash account was closed and the infeftment renounced.
The York-Buildings Company v. Alexander Mackenzie 1784 Sale, Debt, Sequestration, Trustee, Creditor, Fraud The York-Buildings Company, as pursuers, sought reduction of the sale and damages against Alexander Mackenzie, Writer to the Signet, alleging that he had fraudulently purchased Seton lots through a collusive sale process in 1777. Mackenzie defended the regularity of the sale and resisted reduction. The parties subsequently exchanged petitions and answers concerning interlocutors on the reduction, and the Company later sought price reduction based on Mackenzie’s alleged fraudulent conduct as a common agent, which Mackenzie disputed along with the scope of his replies and the Court’s reliance upon them.
Thomas and Alexander Peters, Merchants in Glasgow, v. Alexander Spiers, Andrew Blackburn, and Others, Trustees for James Dunlop, Merchant in Glasgow 1766 Debt, Bankruptcy, Arrestment, Sequestration, Trustee, Creditor In 1763, Glasgow merchant James Dunlop, whose affairs at the time were in a state of confusion, arranged for Alexander Speirs, Andrew Blackburn, and Andrew Syme to become his trustees. Under this agreement, Speirs et al agreed that all debts they recovered on Dunlop's behalf would go first to paying for the duties Dunlop owed on imported tobacco. In July 1763, the ship Betsy arrived in Greenock from Virginia with tobacco belonging to James Dunlop and 16 hogsheads of tobacco consigned to Thomas and Alexander Peters of Glasgow by Walter Peter and Company in Virginia. Dunlop traveled to Greenock to enter his tobacco. At the request of Thomas and Alexander Peters, Dunlop entered in their 16 hogsheads well and was repaid the import duties. When Thomas and Alexander Peters could not secure the delivery of their 16 hogsheads from Dunlop, they brought action against Dunlop in the Court of Session, and as a result the tobacco was arrested in the hands of Josiah Corthine, collector of the customs at Port Glasgow. In August 1764, Dunlop and his agents William Wallace and William King exported 89 hogsheads of tobacco in the ship Hero for Bourdeaux, and they were to receive payment from Corthine on this shipment as a drawback. The Pursuers claimed a right to this sum as repayment for their tobacco, and Speirs et al claimed a right to this sum under trust-right from Dunlop in bankruptcy.
Thomas Cowan v. William Aitchison and William Walker 1797 Debt, Sequestration, Arrestment, Cautioner, Personal Protection, Creditor Thomas Cowan, flesher in Musselburgh, pursued William Aitchison, distiller at St Clement's Wells, and William Walker, attorney in Exchequer, upon a caution bond. Aitchison and Walker petitioned the Court twice to alter a recent interlocutor, first in January 1797 and again in June 1797. Cowan answered both petitions, and in his September answers maintained that the petitioners' failure to present the debtor in February 1796 had forfeited the bond.
Thomas Dunlop and Others v. Alexander Spiers and Others 1778 Onerous Indorsation, In Solidum, Debt, Sequestration, Trustee, Creditor This is one of several cases resulting from the bankruptcy of James Dunlop, Jr. After the Court ruled decisively that the trustees of Dunlop, Sr., could be ranked among Dunlop, Jr.'s creditors, the surviving trustees of Dunlop, Sr., and others sued to recover payment of a bill for £1500 that Dunlop, Jr. owed to the Royal Bank of Scotland. They had been forced to pay it because Dunlop, Sr. had been a co-obligant on the bill. Although the bill had been partially paid, Dunlop, Sr.'s trustees requested that they be ranked for the full amount of the bill. The Court ruled that the pursuers were only entitled to be ranked for the remaining balance of the bill. See the case, Dunlop, and Other Trustees of Carlyle and Co v. Spiers and Others (1776) for more on the larger dispute.
Thomas Earl of Hyndford v. Susanna Vere 1791 Deed, Aliment, Succession, Adjudication, Rent, Sequestration Thomas Earl of Hyndford and his fellow tutors pursued the case against Susanna Vere, who served as sine qua non tutor to an estate. The litigation concerned the extent of a sine qua non tutor’s authority, specifically whether she could veto the other tutors’ administrative acts or was merely required to concur in them. Mrs Vere asserted that her role demanded concurrence in every act and sought to reclaim a deed of restriction in order to resume full control, but the tutors refused to return the deed and threatened to assume complete estate management if she persisted, while maintaining that she possessed no power to negative their decisions.
Thomas Leishman v. The Magistrates of Ayr 1800 Arrestment, Sequestration, Debt, Aliment, Succession, Property Claiming that the market of Ayr lacked a sufficient supply of oatmeal, the Burgh Magistrates sought an order authorizing them to confiscate stored meal from the farm of Balochillie and transport it to market. The Sheriff-substitute of Ayrshire issued a warrant to that effect, specifying that the meal’s owner must be paid not less than the current market price. Pursuer Thomas Leishman, a grain dealer whose meal was confiscated, sought to have the warrant recalled.
Thomas McAllan v. Hugh Bell 1790 Debt, Bankruptcy, Bill of Exchange, Sequestration, Confirmation, Diligence In the case between pursuer Thomas McAllan and defender Hugh Bell, John, David, and Robert Jobson, as trustees and executors of the deceased David Jobson, petitioned the Court to permit sequestration of David Ogilvie's estate under the 1789 Act for rendering payment of creditors more equal and expeditious. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Thomas Wake and Attorney v. Hillary Bauerman & Son, and Jacob Runke Jacobs 1800 Adjudication, Property, Sequestration, Jurisdiction, Possession, Prize A ship belonging to pursuer Thomas Wake, "The Mary of Sunderland," was captured by a French privateer and taken to the Netherlands. The French Commissary of Marine and Commerce, sitting in Amsterdam, condemned the ship as a lawful prize. The ship was re-named the Stettin of Embden and sold to Defenders Hillary Bauerman and Son, who were subjects of Prussia. Subsequently, the ship sailed to the Firth of Forth, where it was seized and taken to Leith on suspicion of being enemy property. When Thomas Wake learned of the ship’s capture, he sought to reclaim it, arguing that the commissary had lacked jurisdiction to issue the condemnation order. Hillary Bauerman and Son argued that ownership of the ship was legally transferred by possession, and that in any case, the condemnation order was sufficient.
Thomson v. Scott 1780 Rent, Arrestment, Hypothec, Sequestration, Interlocutor, Factor Documents available. For description in progress.
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.
Tollemache v. Maxwell 1788 Debt, Adjudication, Bankruptcy, Estate, Sequestration, Infeftment Wilbrahame Tollemache, as pursuer, petitioned the Court to permit payment of the balance due on his heritable bond to Maxwell, the defender, after a prior warrant for £1000 Sterling. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Trustees of Hugh Mitchell v. Crawford. et al 1797 Debt, Bankruptcy, Arrestment, Bill of Exchange, Sequestration, Creditor The Trustees of Hugh Mitchell sought discharge from liability for three undischarged debts against Crawford and the other creditors. When an interlocutor upheld the creditors' objections to the discharge, the trustees challenged it, asserting that they were not personally liable for failing to recover the debts without a breach of trust duties. The defenders answered that the trustees had neglected to use proper diligence while the debtor remained solvent and had been negligent in their handling of the funds.
Turnbull and Petticrew Petition 1794 Debt, Bankruptcy, Sequestration, Trustee, Diligence, Inhibition John Turnbull, with the concurrence of William Petticrew, petitioned the Court to sequestrate his estate and appoint creditors' meetings. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Turnbull v. Rankines and Black 1794 Arrestment, Oath, Debt, Adjudication, Insurance, Sequestration David Turnbull, a baker in Glasgow, pursued James and John Rankines, merchants in Greenock, and John Black, master of the Sloop Clyde, for the loss of two tons of biscuit shipped in 1793, alleging that improper stowage and negligent navigation had caused the vessel's wreck. The defenders answered that the loss was occasioned by storm rather than improper loading, and subsequently petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor pronounced against them.
Walker v. Gordon 1776 Bankruptcy, Trusteeship, Debt, Sequestration, Contract, Trustee William Alexander and Sons agreed to enter a co-partnership with George and Cuthbert Gordon for the production of cudbear (dye). The Alexanders made advances to the Gordons over a number of years. Due to mismanagement and disagreement among the partners, the cudbear company was unsuccessful, leading William Alexander and Sons to dissolve the company and seek payment on its advances. Cuthbert Gordon, defender, retained ownership of the cudbear company. Imprisoned for a debt owed to a third party, Gordon sought to sequester his assets. At issue in this case was who should have served as trustee for the creditors. Pursuer John Walker, as trustee for William Alexander and Sons, argued that Ellies Martin, a merchant in Leith, was the proper trustee. At a meeting of the creditors, Ellies Martin was elected trustee by the majority in value of the creditors present at the meeting. Walker also found it improper for Gordon to supervise his own affairs, since Gordon's mismanagement led to the company's demise. Cuthbert Gordon, however, maintained that he was the proper trustee, because certain creditors at the creditors' meeting selected him as trustee.
Walpoles v. John Walker 1778 Reduction of a Trust Deed, Fraud, Commission of Bankruptcy In England, Arrestment, Sequestration, Trustee This case concerns a trust disposition granted by William Alexander to John Walker in September 1775, shortly before an English commission of bankruptcy was awarded against the former. The largest English creditors of William Alexander held mortgages on two Grenada estates jointly owned by him and his brother. They brought an action to have the above-mentioned trust-deed reduced. In January of 1778 Lord Monboddo assoilzied (absolved) the defender. The pursuers petitioned the Court to alter this decision. They argued that the trust was voided by a petition for a sequestration brought before Lord Gardenstone by William Alexander in April 1777. In addition, the pursuers argued that the trust-deed failed under the statutes 1621 (relating to conjunct and confident persons) and 1696 (regarding diligence), "or, at least, that they ought, without hesitation, to be reduced, on the head of fraud, at common law." Regarding this charge of fraud, the pursuers claimed that they had an indisputable claim to the proceeds of the Grenada plantations, but that the Alexander brothers, aided by the defender, went through elaborate lengths to conceal these profits from their creditors. They further accused William Alexander of sending his trunk of papers to Edinburgh, so as to prevent the pursuers from discovering this fraud. The Court altered Lord Monboddo's interlocutor, sustaining the reasons of reduction. William Alexander then petitioned the Court to alter this interlocutor, which it refused. Similarly, the defender petitioned the Court to either allow the trust to subsist in the person of another trustee, or to declare as bona fide his prior actions as trustee.

The circumstances surrounding this case are covered extensively in Jacob M. Price, France and the Chesapeake. In particular, see volume 2, pages 691-700.
Webster v. Tod 1782 Debt, Rent, Aliment, Lease, Arrestment, Sequestration Isobel Anderson, represented by her son James Tod, petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor of Lord Elliock Ordinary that had sustained the reduction of damages and decreed against her in the action by Webster. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Wilkins v. Campbell 1798 Debt, Arrestment, Creditor, Jurisdiction, Sequestration, Cautioner Miss Elizabeth Wilkins pursued William Campbell, Sheriff-Clerk of Ayr, seeking to hold him liable for a debt on the ground that he had rendered himself responsible by accepting an illegal bond of caution for Edmund Kelly. Campbell defended by denying liability, citing irregular bail procedures and absence of malversation, and challenged the sufficiency of Reverend Jones’s affidavit while seeking to introduce his own account of the Dublin security transactions. Both parties subsequently petitioned the Court regarding an interlocutor—Wilkins concerning her entitlement to expenses and Campbell seeking its alteration—to which Wilkins and Quintin Johnston answered maintaining their position on the bond’s improper acceptance.
William Allison v. Thomas Naismith 1769 Bankruptcy, Debt, Aliment, Arrestment, Sequestration, Creditor Robert Wither, a merchant in Stranraer, died in 1763, leaving many debts to his creditors. Thomas Naismith was one of Wither's creditors. Naismith was selected by the group of Naismith's creditors to manage the affairs of Wither's estate and organize payments to Wither's creditors. Alexander Kennedy of Ayr was one of Wither's creditors. Before Kennedy was paid by the Wither estate, his own affairs went into disorder. Two of Kennedy's creditors, Robert Muir and Fisher and Bannatyne, pursued arrestments in the hands of Mr. Naismith for the sums due by Wither to Kennedy. Pursuer William Allison was an agent for Kennedy's creditors. Naismith and Allison disputed the management of Wither's estate.
William Galdie, Factor on the Sequestrated Estate of James Anderson v. William Gray 1774 Debt, Arrestment, Sequestration, Creditor, Compensation, Assignation James Anderson formed a partnership with John Brown, Robert Carrick, and William Gray for the purpose of manufacturing linens in Glasgow. The partnership was known as Brown, Carrick, and Company. Although the firm was successful, Anderson became insolvent, and his personal estate was sequestered by the court. William Galdie was appointed factor. Partner William Gray, who was a creditor to Anderson, sought to attach Anderson’s interest in Brown, Carrick, and Company; two other creditors named Archibald and John Coates did the same. In response, the firm raised a process of multiplepoinding. In that proceeding, Gray claimed a preference, asserting that as a partner in Brown, Carrick, and Company, he had a common law right of retention with respect to Anderson’s interest. Additionally, Gray claimed a preference based on a clause in the firm’s partnership agreement. As factor, William Galdie opposed these claims, arguing that any right of retention was held by the partnership, not by the partners as individuals. Galdie further argued that the cited clause in the partnership agreement did not apply. Gray’s claims were initially rejected by the court; thus, Gray became the petitioner and Galdie the respondent in subsequent phases of litigation.
William Robertson v. David Miller 1781 Debt, Arrestment, Bill of Exchange, Sequestration, Tack, Interlocutor In the case between William Robertson, pursuer, and David Miller, defender, William Craig petitioned the Court to alter the interlocutor of Lord Kames Ordinary, which had found him liable for expenses. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.

Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 2528)