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
William Sprott v. Patrick Frazer 1796 Gambling, Common Law, Interdict, Bankruptcy, Sequestration, Statute William Sprott, Solicitor-at-Law and Procurator-Fiscal for the City of Edinburgh, answered a bill of advocation in which Patrick Frazer, Walter Berry, and Henry Farquharson sought to have the Magistrates' interlocutor and interdict against their lotteries remitted on the ground that private lotteries were lawful. Sprott contested this argument, maintaining that private lotteries were illegal and defending the magisterial prohibition. The case thus raised the question of the lawfulness of private lotteries, with the defenders seeking to overturn the interdict and the pursuer supporting the magistrates' authority to enforce it.
William Wright v. Mary Ellis 1767 Succession, Debt, Adjudication, Liferent, Aliment, Sequestration Alexander Wright, brother of pursuer William Wright, died without issue in 1747. His widow, Agnes Ellis, was entitled to an annuity and a sum of money; additionally, Alexander left a small heritable subject and about £200. Although William was Alexander’s heir at law, he decided not to claim these subjects while Agnes lived. Upon Agnes's death, her niece Mary Ellis took possession of the subjects, and William sued. He prevailed, leading to the question of how much interest Mary owed.
Wilson, et al v. Clerks of Session 1789 Agent, Process, Succession, Aliment, Sequestration, Libel Janet Wilson, widow of James Maiklem, and Maiklems pursued the Clerks of Session for indemnification for the loss of a process and the costs of reinstating the action. The Clerks answered, denying any fault and asserting that the process had been duly transmitted and returned.
Wood and Mason v. Skene 1776 Extortion, Fraud, Debt, Arrestment, Bill of Exchange, Sequestration In November 1776, James Robertson hired Alexander Morison to arrest James Wood, who owed him about £20. Morison later hired John Skene to retrieve the money, and Skene had Wood incarcerated in the Leith tolbooth. The next day Wood was released after conveying seven shillings to his jailor "for what was called jail-fees"; and to Skene £4 in cash and a conjunct bill with his brother-in-law, Andrew Mason, for £16. Wood also informed Skene that he had earlier paid Robertson about £1 for the expenses of diligence, and Skene answered that he would grant a receipt for this amount once a voucher was produced. Wood and Mason later brought a complaint against Skene before the Court of Session on the basis that he had requisitioned from them more than what was owed, and that he had failed to return the principal bill. Claiming that part of the money paid to Skene had been to cover his own fees, they accused him of transgressing an essential duty of his office as messenger-at-arms. To support this accusation they cited the Court's 1738 decision in Monro v. Ross, which had later been ingrossed in the books of Sederunt and of the Lyon-court, forbidding messengers from extracting their fees from the object of their diligence. Skene responded that none of the money he had extracted from the pursuers had been to cover his own fees, and that he had not returned the principal bill at the time because it was not in his possession. Handwritten marginalia on the Petition and Complaint observes "It does not appear how this case was disposed of, but the Answer to the Petition seems satisfactory." The Court's decision regarding the ten shillings paid to cover the fees of Alexander Morison are not brought up in these case documents.
Woods v. Carstairs 1777 Bargain, Loan, Ranking of Creditors, Sale, Sequestration, Factor This case concerns a promised wheat shipment from Robert Fleming, tenant in Falside, to James and William Woods, merchants in Elie. In January 1777, Fleming wrote the Woods brothers about his circumstances. He offered to send them "all the wheat that I have" in exchange for an advance of money. The Woods brothers sent Fleming about £9 in cash and approximately £30 in bills. Fleming then sent the Woods sixteen bolls of wheat, promising to deliver the remainder after seed-time. However, before this could happen, Fleming's affairs went into disorder, and he applied for a sequestration of his effects. The Woods then applied to James Carstairs, Fleming's factor, for the remainder of the wheat. Carstairs replied that the money Fleming had received from the two men was not a bargain, but a loan, and informed them that they would have to wait for the ranking of Fleming's creditors. The Woods then petitioned the Court to order Carstairs to deliver the wheat to them. As opposed to Carstair's claim that the transaction in question was a loan, the pursuers argued that it was a bargain.
Yelton and others v. Smith and others 1801 Adjudication, Insurance, Prize, Debt, Arrestment, Sequestration The ship "Diana," which was owned by the pursuers, recaptured an English ship called the "Lady Bruce" from a French privateer. The pursuers purchased an insurance policy of £400 on the salvage. However, the Diana lacked any letters of marque giving it the legal right to seize property from the enemy. After the "Lady Bruce" was recaptured by a Dutch schooner, the pursuers sued the underwriters, the defenders, for the amount due under their policy. The defenders argued that because the Diana had no letters of marque, the pursuers never possessed an insurable interest in the Lady Bruce; therefore, according to the defenders, the insurance policy was void.
York Building Company v. Roperhead 1791 Debt, Sequestration, Assignment, Assignation, Creditor, Reduction The Governor and Company of Undertakers for Raising the Thames Water in York Buildings petitioned the Court against Roperhead to find that assignees of bonds must take every objection competent against the cedent. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
York-Buildings Company v. Martin, Stone, and Foote 1791 Debt, Creditor, Adjudication, Ranking of Creditors, Bankruptcy, Sequestration The York-Buildings Company pursued an action against Martin, Stone, and Foote to revise the Court's interlocutors of 1783 and 1786 and to overturn Lord Monboddo's interlocutor respecting objections to adjudications against the Company's estates. The Company contended that the common agent had acted improperly by precipitating sales without ensuring that debts were liquidated. They sought revision of the earlier orders and reversal of the ruling on the adjudications based on this alleged impropriety in the sales process.
Young, et al v. Veitch 1797 Debt, Adjudication, Aliment, Arrestment, Succession, Sequestration Young and his co-petitioners challenged an interlocutor that ordered wood payment following Veitch’s death, asserting their status as bona fide purchasers and their entitlement under an entail without prohibition. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.

Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 2528)