Trustee. Judicial Factor.
Definition source
Bell, William, A Dictionary and Digest of the Law of Scotland, 7th ed. rev. George Ross (Edinburgh: Bell & Bradfute, 1861), s.v. “Trustee.” Public domain.
Legal Subject: Trustee |
| Case | Date | Legal Subject | Abstract |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abraham Delvalle, and Others v. The Creditors of the York-Buildings Company | 1783 | Debt, Prescription, Creditor, Sequestration, Trustee, Trust | After the York Buildings Company failed, its real property in Scotland became the subject of a ranking of creditors. In this ranking, a group of creditors objected to certain claims that had been submitted. In particular, the creditors made two key objections to claims based on bonds issued by the Company. First, the creditors objected that many bonds had been cut off by the Scottish statute of limitations, or “prescription.” In response, the affected bondholders argued that the prescription should not apply because the debts were still valid in England, where they had been contracted and where the York Buildings Company and its creditors resided. Second, the creditors objected that some bonds had been issued under value and should be ranked accordingly. The affected creditors argued that the bonds were negotiable instruments, and purchasers were entitled to rely on their face value. In the course of the proceedings, both sides filed petitions with the Court of Session. |
| Addis v. Shaw | 1788 | Debt, Bankruptcy, Aliment, Arrestment, Sequestration, Trustee | George and Henry Addis, creditors of Angus Shaw, pursued Shaw and Alexander Macpherson, trustee, reporting on new production and a minute required by the Court. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Alexander, Duke of Gordon, v. The Commissioners for Managing the Forfeited Estates annexed to the Crown | 1771 | Landlord and tenant, Clan Act, Rent, Trustee, Forfeiture, Adjudication | The Clan Act, as subsequently amended, enabled agents of the Crown to hold lands previously owned by participants in the 1715 rebellion. These agents, called "commissioners," could appoint new tenants to the lands. Superiors of the lands were forced to either sell their land to the Crown or accept new tenants selected by the commissioners. Petitioner, Alexander Duke of Gordon, was one such superior who had yet to sell his land in Clunie, Callart, and part of Lochiel. Alexander maintained that the commissioners of the Crown must pay an entry fine (approximately one year's rent) to hold his land. The commissioners of the Crown argued that they are not obligated to pay an entry fine. The Lords concluded that a superior was not entitled, upon an entry, to demand from the Crown's donatary, or trustee for the Crown's behalf, the composition of a year's rent. |
| Anderson v. Creditors of Arnot | 1792 | Arrestment, Trustee, Creditor, Multiple-Poinding, Assignation, Debt | Lilias Anderson, as pursuer, petitioned against an interlocutor issued by Lord Dregborn in her case against the creditors of Arnot. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Baillie v. Eskgrove's Interlocutor | 1795 | Bankruptcy, Cautioner, Succession, Prescription, Trustee, Diligence | Baillie, as petitioners, challenged Eskgrove’s interlocutor rejecting their defense that a 1785 judicial bond was exempt from the 1695 Act’s seven-year limit by prescription. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Bayne and Miller v. Wisheart-Belshes | 1792 | Succession, Aliment, Trustee, Reduction, Fraud, Cautioner | Margaret Bayne and David Miller, baker in Perth, objected to the examination of James Dick Junior as a witness for Sir John Wisheart-Belshes in the process against him, arguing that Dick was disqualified by interest and relation. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Bayne v. Belshes | 1793 | Aliment, Succession, Trust, Deed, Trustee, Reduction | Margaret Bayne and David Miller pursued Sir John Wishart-Belsches and James Knox to challenge the validity of a settlement executed by Thomas Ruthven. Sir John Wishart-Belsches defended the action by asserting that the deed constituted a valid deathbed settlement which Mrs. Bayne had ratified. |
| Bell v. Edgar | 1769 | Liferent, Aliment, Lease, Succession, Deed, Trustee | Andrew Bell, Tackman of Spylaw, and his assignees, as pursuers, argued that a bond granted by Richard Edgar was valid and not subject to reduction. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Braimer v. Innes and Lothian | 1788 | Aliment, Debt, Succession, Interdiction, Trustee, Trust | John Braimer, late of Edrom, as pursuer, petitioned the Court to alter Lord Stonefield's interlocutor, which maintained Braimer's interdiction and declared the trustees not bound to pay over the balance. Gilbert Innes of Stow and John Lothian, merchant in Edinburgh, as defenders, answered the petition, resisting Braimer's claim for reversion and discharge of the interdiction. |
| Caddel & Creditors of Niblie v. Lord Dunsinnan's Interlocutor | 1793 | Debt, Bankruptcy, Aliment, Sequestration, Trustee, Contract of marriage | Caddel and the creditors of Peter Niblie at Buxley petitioned the Court to alter Lord Dunsinnan's interlocutor sustaining Mrs Niblie's vote as a creditor entitled to elect a trustee. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Chalmers, Leslie, & Seton v. Creditors of George Chalmers | 1778 | Debt, Adjudication, Ranking of Creditors, Sequestration, Trustee, Creditor | The partnership of Chalmers, Leslie, and Seton sought to be ranked on the estate of George Chalmers of Pittencrieff. Several of Chalmers’s creditors objected on the ground that the firm’s creditors were already ranked. |
| Craig v. Anderson | 1776 | Trustees, Debt, Sequestration, Trustee, Inhibition, Oath | Joseph Heatly was an engineer who became insolvent before he could complete a projected coal-work outside of Glasgow. His estate being sequestered. His trustees put Heatly's funds and their own private capital into completing this coal work, projecting that the profits from the venture would more than pay back Heatly's debts and the expenses of its founding. John Anderson, one of Heatly's creditors, believed the trustees had neither the background nor the aptitude to manage a coal-work, and did not expect that this undertaking would result in him receiving the debt owed to him. He brought a summons and executed an inhibition against the trustees. In response the trustees petitioned the Court to have this inhibition suspended. Lord Kennet granted a sist (judicial stay) on the inhibition, "till the bill and answers should be advised." Because of this sist the inhibition was not recorded or executed within forty days, but the trustees feared that Anderson would file another one. They petitioned the Court to rule that Anderson could not execute an inhibition against the trustees of Heatly's estate. The Court dismissed this petition. |
| Crawfords v. Russell, et al | 1789 | Succession, Aliment, Trustee, Debt, Arrestment, Disposition | Agnes and Margaret Crawfurds, as pursuers, argued that they were absolute fiars during their lives and that their children were heirs to the sums bequeathed in fee. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Creditors of Currie v. Geddes | 1793 | Debt, Creditor, Prescription, Bill of Exchange, Trustee, Trustees | The creditors of Currie, represented by their common agent in the sale and ranking of the Estate of Newlaw, petitioned the Court to alter Lord Swinton’s interlocutor. The respondents contested the creditors’ attempt to rank debts against Currie’s estate, citing partial payments and post-prescription markings as evidence of debt continuity. |
| Creditors of John Horn | 1791 | Sequestration, Creditor, Trustee, Adjudication, Interlocutor, Statute | George Wilson, trustee for the creditors of John Horn, petitioned to alter an interlocutor allowing individual creditors to adjudicate post-sequestration, citing statutory prohibition and the risk of confusion or penalty preference. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| David Clyne v. James Trail and David Hendersson, (Williamson's Trustees) | 1830 | Debt, Arrestment, Creditor, Assignation, Trustee, Sequestration | David Clyne raised a summons of forthcoming against James Traill, trustee for the creditors of the late Lieutenant-Colonel Benjamin Williamson, and David Henderson, factor, to recover funds held in trust for Kenneth Fraser. Traill and Henderson defended the action on the ground that they were not in possession of the funds at the time of the arrestment. They subsequently lodged a reclaiming note asking the Court to alter the interlocutor of which they complained. |
| Donald Campbell v. David Campbell | 1776 | Cautioner, Debt, Trustee, Assignment, Security, Creditor | John Campbell of Clochombie and James Campbell of Ballinaby were co-cautioners on a bond granted by Major Donald Campbell of Castlesween to the Bank of Scotland. After Castlesween encountered financial difficulties, Colonel Donald Campbell of Saddell stepped in to pay £4000 towards his debts, including the bond. As part of this transaction, Saddell took assignments of the debts in question and received a heritable security over Castleween. Subsequently, Saddell sought payment from David Campbell of Clochombie, son of the elder Clochombie. These two men struck a deal in which David agreed to pay off the entire £4000 in exchange for assignments of the debts and the security over Castlesween. As the new assignee, David sought payment from Donald Campbell of Ballinaby, the son of his father’s co-cautioner. Ballinaby contended that he was entitled to be ranked on the heritable security, leading to a dispute about the manner in which he would be ranked. |
| Douglas v. Mason | 1796 | Debt, Arrestment, Creditor, Assignation, Bankruptcy, Trustee | Douglas petitioned the Court to alter the interlocutors of Lord Swinton Ordinary in a multiple-poinding process regarding a legacy held by a trustee. Mason argued that an arrestment laid upon the legacy was valid and took priority over an assignation made by a bankrupt son to his mother. |
| 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. |
| Duggan v. Wight | 1795 | Debt, Aliment, Lease, Trust, Tack, Trustee | Francis Duggan pursued Alexander Wight regarding the lands of Kevockmill, contesting Lord Elkgrove's title and claiming that Wight held the property in trust for him, asserting a beneficial interest despite his absence from the conveyance. Wight denied serving as trustee and relied upon rent receipts to reject Duggan's claim, citing contradictions and lack of funds. After the court pronounced an interlocutor against him, Duggan reclaimed; subsequently, Wight petitioned with correspondence disputing ownership, and Duggan answered maintaining his trust claim. |
| Duncan Stewart v. Lieutenant Alexander Graeme | 1796 | Succession, Aliment, Trustee, Interlocutor, Creditor, Liferent | While working abroad in the service of the East India Company, Lieutenant Duncan Stewart remitted £1000 to Scotland. He assigned a power of attorney to William Stewart and John Taylor, allowing them to manage the money. Lieutenant Stewart directed the men to invest his money in heritable securities and give the interest to certain family members. He died in India, leaving a holographic memorandum of a will that provided for the money in Scotland to be “applied in the manner already directed.” Lieutenant Stewart’s executors initiated a court proceeding to determine who was entitled to the £1000. The court determined that the fund was heritable property that should pass to Lieutenant Stewart’s heir-at-law, his sister Elizabeth Stewart Bowman. Bowman then died, leaving the residue of her estate to her natural son Lieutenant Alexander Graeme. Lieutenant Graeme claimed that he was entitled to the £1000 based on Mrs. Bowman’s will. However, Duncan Stewart, Lieutenant Stewart’s cousin in Jamaica, claimed that he was the Lieutenant’s heir-at-law and should inherit the money because the £1000 was a heritable subject and Bowman never made up a title to it. Case documents include a reproduction of Lieutenant Stewart's detailed memorandum disposing of his personal effects. |
| 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. |
| Edmonstone, Fraser, and Ferrier v. Trustees of General Simon Fraser | 1791 | Debt, Succession, Trustee, Entail, Disposition, Trust | Edmonstone, Fraser, and Ferrier pursued the Trustees of General Simon Fraser for payment of a Crown-gifted debt, insisting that the trustees were bound to pay the specified heirs rather than apply the funds to the entailed estate. The trustees maintained that the Crown’s gift of the debt to Archibald Fraser could not be enforced against the entailed estate of Lovat. They subsequently petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor in the cause. |
| Ferrier v. Grant, and Others | 1780 | Trustee, Ranking and Sale, Debt, Adjudication, Bankruptcy, Creditor | This case was about the standing of an individual creditor to raise objections regarding a judicial sale, where a trustee had been appointed to act for the creditors' common interest. Thomas Fairholm and Adam Fairholm became bankrupt and conveyed their estate to Ludovick Grant, who was appointed trustee for the Fairholms’ creditors. All of the creditors acceded to this arrangement. Grant then obtained a heritable bond over lands belonging to Samuel Garbet, Francis Garbet, and Charles Gascoigne, who were Fairholm’s major debtors, and pursued a judicial sale based on that bond. However, Helen Ferrier, a creditor of the Fairholms, objected that certain lands had been omitted from the sale. In particular, Ferrier argued for the inclusion of lands to which Gascoigne had renounced his liferent rights after the proceeding commenced. In response, Grant and the other creditors claimed that the disputed lands were of no value. They also argued that Grant, as trustee, held all rights to the creditors’ debts and to the bond upon which the sale was based, and therefore that he was the only person entitled to take action on them. Similarly, they argued that only Grant, as pursuer of the sale, had standing to object to the omission of the lands. Ferrier responded that Grant held the debts and the bond for the benefit of the creditors, and that she, as a creditor, was also entitled to rely on them. |
| 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. |
| George and Wilsons v. Wilson | 1789 | Succession, Tack, Aliment, Lease, Trustee, Interest | George, David, and Mary Wilsons, children of the deceased George Wilson, answered the petition of James Wilson concerning Foulden-Newton, maintaining that the petitioner's claims were without foundation and that the case had been fully determined. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| 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 Haldane, and Others v. Charleton Palmer | 1791 | Trustee, Creditor, Adjudication, Debt, Sale, Succession | George Haldane and other creditors pursued Charleton Palmer regarding the sale of the Grange estate and the ranking of claims to the proceeds. The creditors of W. Belchier argued that a summons of sale raised at the instance of an apparent heir does not operate as an adjudication for the behoof of the whole creditors, while Haldane sought to have his interest ranked pari passu with the other creditors. |
| Grant v. Campbell | 1765 | Liferent, Aliment, Succession, Trust, Trustee, Assignment | Grant, as executor, sued the Campbell heirs for an unpaid marriage settlement that included a mortgage and annuity, the dispute turning on an incomplete conveyance and questions of executor liability. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| Henderson v. Inner-House Interlocutor | 1789 | Debt, Bankruptcy, Creditor, Aliment, Trustee, Interlocutor | Michael Henderson petitioned the Court of Session to alter a recent interlocutor issued by the Inner House. He presented an initial petition in March 1789, and subsequently presented a reclaiming petition in July 1789. The dispute concerned the Court's authority to review and modify its own prior interlocutory order. |
| Heritors of Stewarton v. Trustees on the High Roads, and Cunningham | 1797 | Debt, Trustees, Trustee, Contract, Assignment, Heritor | The Heritors of Stewarton pursued the Trustees on the High Roads and William Cunningham regarding the administration of statute conversion money for highway repairs in the parish. The heritors argued that such funds were required to be expended annually on the public roads and could not be assigned to other purposes, while Cunningham contended that the trustees were not bound to yearly expenditure or to repay past misapplications, and further claimed that the trustees had unlawfully refused to apply the money to reimburse his personal advances for road works. The process included trustees' minutes from 1774 to 1791, which recorded road repairs, toll assignments, and Cunningham's appointment as principal overseer and collector, together with a report by the Sheriff-Depute on road conditions recommending specific repairs and toll-bars. |
| 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. |
| 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 M'Harg v. Marquis of Tweeddale | 1782 | Ranking and Sale, Debt, Creditor, Arrestment, Bill of Exchange, Trustee | This case encompasses two phases of a ranking and sale brought by George Hay, Marquis of Tweeddale, against the estate of the late James M’Harg of Keirs. In the first phase of the case, the Court of Session considered technical questions relating to the claims of a creditor, also named James M’Harg. In the second phase, the Court considered a challenge by creditor James M’Harg’s to the Lord Ordinary’s interlocutor of ranking. |
| Janet Kyle and Her Trustees v. William Allan, Adam White and Others | 1816 | Reduction, Trustee, Debt, Creditor, Succession, Aliment | Janet Kyle (also called Jessie Kyle) and her Trustees brought a summons of reduction against Adam White and other defenders, seeking to set aside the contract of April 20, 1811. White lodged preliminary and substantive defences denying the validity of the reduction and asserting that he was a bona fide purchaser of the rights in question. The cause proceeded to an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Mackenzie, against which the pursuers reclaimed. |
| 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 Davidson v. Alexander Kyde, and Others | 1797 | Decreet-Arbitral, Succession, Trustee, Arrestment, Executor, Will | John Davidson, Esquire, trustee for Rachael Lindsay, spouse of Major James Dickson in the East India Company's service, and for his own interest, petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Stonefield. Major Alexander Kyde answered the petition. Robert Strang, Andrew Lennox, and James Alexander, in company, subsequently petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor. |
| John Finlay v. Robert Syme Clerk to the Signet | 1772 | Hypothec, Debt security, Debt, Trustee, Interlocutor, Diligence | Robert Syme, defender, had in his possession a number of papers belonging to John Finlay, pursuer. Finlay sued his own father, Robert Finlay, and asked Syme for the papers as evidence in the suit against his father. Syme sought to retain Finlay's papers because Finlay was indebted to him. The court twice ordered Syme, by interlocutor, to return the papers to Finlay's custody. Syme refused, claiming that he had a hypothec (security) on the writings in his custody. Syme argued that he was not required to return the papers until Finlay satisfied his debt to Syme. Syme cited authorities for the proposition that agents have a right of hypothec or retention in their client's writings for claims of payment. |
| John Home, Writer to the Signet, Petitioner | 1792 | Debt, Entail, Succession, Trust, Trustees, Trustee | Sir John Stirling, Alexander Grahame, Sir Alexander Purves, Dame Mary Willis, and Dame Gloriana Stirling asked the Court to alter its recent interlocutor in the case in which John Home, Writer to the Signet, appeared as petitioner. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Kirkpatrick v. Maxwells | 1795 | Succession, Possession, Contract, Prescription, Tack, Trustee | William Kirkpatrick claimed title to Kirkcudbright lands against the heirs and husbands of Sir Robert Maxwell’s sisters, who defended by asserting their own prior title founded upon ancient charters and prescription. After the Court issued an interlocutor, Kirkpatrick petitioned to have it altered, and the defenders subsequently disputed his claim. |
| Launie v. Palmer | 1794 | Debt, Bill of Exchange, Trustee, Bankruptcy, Prescription, Employment | The pursuer Launie, by John Dickson, petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor and to decern for the balance of the account, opposing Palmer's claim to charge as principal furnisher and to impose interest and commission. Palmer responded, arguing that the practice of principal furnishers receiving a percentage from tradesmen was not an imposition on the public or employer. The dispute centered on the legitimacy of these charges in the accounting between the parties. |
| MacDonald v. MacGillivray | 1793 | Succession, Liferent, Trustee, Creditor, Interest, Debt | Alexander Macdonald, trustee for the creditors of bankrupt Lieutenant Alexander Fraser, sued Farquhar Macgillivray to recover £400 due under a bond. Thomas, Alexander, and Ann Fraser, children of Lieutenant Fraser, argued that the fee of the lands of Aberchalader was vested in their mother rather than their father and thus not subject to the creditors' claim. Macgillivray maintained that the fee of the £400 was vested in Lieutenant Fraser rather than his wife or children. |
| MacEwan v Thompson | 1793 | Debt, Succession, Creditor, Trustee, Adjudication, Disposition | |
| MacLean v. MacLean | 1792 | Debt, Arrestment, Trustee, Interlocutor, Promissory note, Inhibition | John MacLean petitioned the Court to recall the inhibition placed against him by Mrs Janet MacLean and William Scott her husband, alleging that it had been obtained without proper grounds and was being used to distress him in his business. 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. |
Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 1366)
- 1.—STATEMENT of FACTS for Hunter's Representatives, in closed Record, page 44, Article 12. EXCERPTS from Mr BROWN'S REPORTS on the Accounts of the Trust of George Home, Esq.
- 1.—SUMMONS. 2.—REVISED CONDESCENDENCE for Pursuer; AND REVISED ANSWERS thereto for Defender.
- 180-1785-1800 doc0100
- 2.—REVISED CONDESCENDENCE for Pursuers, AND REVISED ANSWERS thereto for Defender.
- 3. and 4.—RE-REVISED CONDESCENDENCE for Mrs. Margaret Stormonth or Darling, Wife of James Darling, Writer in Kelso, and the said James Darling, for his Interest,—Pursuers; AND RE-R
- 367.—MINUTE for David Milne, Esq. Judicial-Factor on the Estate of Billie; In the Action of Count and Reckoning at the instance of William Foreman Home, Esq. of Billie and Paxton,
- 6. MINUTE for William Smith, Writer in Edinburgh, Trustee on the Sequestrated Estate of Mrs Ann Eliza Munro, Pawnbroker in Edinburgh, Relict, and as Executrix, of the late Daniel M
- A. & W. Thom v. The North British Bank and Andrew Tennent — Bill of Advocation, 20 Apr 1847
- A. and W. Thom v. North British Bank and Andrew Tennent — Answers [4]
- A. Gibson v. A. Stephenson, Esq. and Others — Minute, 8 Jan 1835 [2]
- Abraham Delvalle, and Others v. The Creditors of the York-Buildings Company — Petition, 12 Nov 1783
- Abraham Delvalle, and Others v. The Creditors of the York-Buildings Company — Petition, 20 Feb 1783
- Abram Delvalle, John Farmer, and others v. Martha Grove, and others — Answers, 8 Jul 1784
- Adam Christie and Others v. Royal Bank of Scotland — Answers, 16 Nov 1835
- Adam Christie and Others v. The Royal Bank of Scotland — Condescendence
- Adam Christie and Others v. The Royal Bank of Scotland — Revised Case, 27 Nov 1837
- Adam Ferrie v. David Mathie — Answers, 14 Jun 1824
- Adam Ferrie v. David Mathie — Answers, 4 Sep 1823 [2]
- Adam Ferrie v. David Mathie — Bill of Suspension, 9 Feb 1822
- Adam Ferrie v. William Ewing — Answers, 29 May 1824
- Adam Grant Dyer and John Wood v. James Buchanan and John Auld — Answers, 28 Jan 1784
- Adam Grant v. Ellis Martin and John Anderson — Memorial, 30 Jan 1782
- Adam Scott v. Thomas and Helen Scotts — Answers, 25 Jul 1780 [2]
- Add. Petition, Lieut. J. a Greme against Inner House Interlocutor
- Additional Appendix to Rec. Note.—R. H. Middlemass against Lord Moncreiff's Interlocutor
- Additional Appendix to Rec. Note—Janet Kyle and her Trustees against Lord Mackenzie's Interlocutor
- ADDITIONAL APPENDIX TO RECLAIMING NOTE, Mrs ELIZABETH RENNIE or HOWAT, AGAINST Lord Robertson's Interlocutor.
- Additional State-ment for J. Mac-allan, W.S. ; and Answers for Sir W. Elliott's Trustees.
- Agnes and Margaret Crawfurds v. James Russell, Agnes Russell, John Russell, Elisabeth Russell, Robert Russell, Margaret Russell and Barbara Smellie — Memorial, 22 Jul 1789
- Agnes Steuart of Phisgill and John Hawthorn v. Alexander Earl of Galloway and the other Trustees for the Creditors of the deceased Captain John Stewart of Phisgill — Information, 31 Jul 1758
- Alex. Ewing v. George Brown — Answers
- Alexander Achyndachy v. John Durno — Answers, 28 Jul 1787
- Alexander Allan v. William Johnstone — Information, 17 Feb 1786
- Alexander and Robert Brodie v. Joseph Brooks Yates — 12 Nov 1836
- Alexander Baird & Others v. George Sinclair — Answers, 16 Feb 1822
- Alexander Baird v. John Baillie — Answers, 9 Feb 1822
- Alexander Blair of Dunrod v. Hugh Corrie — Answers, 20 Jul 1780
- Alexander Bryce and Alexander Graham v. Monteith, Bogle, & Co. — Answers, 28 Feb 1817
- Alexander Buchanan v. Mrs. Isabella Lowis and Ninian Lowis — Bill of Advocation, 24 Jan 1812 [2]
- Alexander Burns v. Duncan Cameron — Answers, 8 Apr 1824 [2]
- Alexander Burns v. Duncan Cameron — Duplies, 3 Apr 1823
- Alexander Burton v. Andrew M'Whinnie — Replies, 1 Dec 1795
- Alexander Cunnynghame v. William Muir of Caldwall — Duplies, 26 Feb 1760
- Alexander Duke of Gordon v. John Duke of Argyle — Answers, 12 Feb 1772
- Alexander Earl of Caithness v. Margaret Countess of Caithness — Answers, 14 Dec 1762
- Alexander Ewing and Others v. William Lawrie — Answers, 12 Jan 1824
- Alexander Ewing v. William Laurie — Petition and Complaint, 2 Dec 1823
- Alexander Ewing, Lindsay and Adam, and Peter Buchanan v. George Brown — Answers, 21 Feb 1828
- Alexander Fraser and John Black Gracie v. Lieutenant Colonel Vans Agnew of Sheuchan — Appendix, 8 Jan 1829
- Alexander Galloway v. Archibald M'Lellan, Junior, and Others, Trustees of the deceased Mrs Jean Walkinshaw or Currie — Summons, 9 Dec 1836
- Alexander Galloway v. William Henderson — Proof, 7 Jul 1806
- Alexander Glen v. Major Thomas Dundas — Memorial, 23 Jun 1821
- Alexander Gordon v. John Baddon — Bill of Advocation, 22 Oct 1846
- Alexander Gourlay v. David Straton — Answers
- Alexander Grant v. Captain James Fraser — Answers, 18 Apr 1822
- Alexander Henderson, of Stempster, Esquire, and Others, Trustees of the late Mrs Menie Sinclair, or Henderson v. John Tulloch, Esquire, and Donald Ross — Reclaiming, 6 Sep 1832
- Alexander Innes v. Dame Georgina Lamont or Keith and Others — 16 Jul 1857
- Alexander Kay and John Morton v. Alexander Balfour, Thomas Bell, James Smith, John Symers, Andrew Brown, William Lindsay, Patrick Whitson, George Thoms, and Alexander Reid — Answers, 8 Dec 1827
- Alexander Kinloch v. James Rocheid — information, 31 Jan 1799
- Alexander Macdonald v. Farquhar Macgillivray and the Children of Lieutenant Alexander Fraser — Information, 9 Jul 1793
- Alexander Macdonald v. Farquhar Macgillivray — Information, 9 Jul 1793
- Alexander Mackenzie v. Governor and Company of Undertakers for raising the Thames Water in York-buildings — Answers, 15 Nov 1792
- Alexander Mackenzie v. York-Buildings Company — Answers, 15 Nov 1792
- Alexander Mein v. Hardie's Representatives — Case, 23 Jan 1829
- Alexander Mein v. James Hardie and Others — Note of Pleas in Law, 1 Jun 1828
- Alexander Mein v. James Hardie and Others — Revised Case [3]
- Alexander Morrice v. George Burnet and Others — Summons, 13 Dec 1828
- Alexander Napier v. Turner and Boyd — Bill of Suspension, 6 Feb 1826
- Alexander Oliphant Murray v. James Scott — Answers, 12 Jun 1828
- Alexander Oliphant Murray v. James Scott — Revised Case, 19 May 1829
- Alexander Ritchie v. Colin Lauder — Answers, 12 Feb 1795
- Alexander Robertson v. George Johnston — Answers, 9 Jun 1791
- Alexander Sinclair v. Peter Sinclair — Reasons, 12 Nov 1829 [2]
- Alexander Speirs, Andrew Blackburn, and Andrew Syme, Trustees for the Creditors of James Dunlop v. Thomas and Alexander Peters — Answers, 27 Dec 1766
- Alexander Spiers, Andrew Blackburn and Andrew Syme v. Thomas Dunlop and James Ritchie — Information, 25 Apr 1778
- Alexander Stuart v. Earl of Minto — Answers, 10 Dec 1819
- Alexander Thomson v. John Reid — Replies, 7 Feb 1809
- Alexander Wight v. Francis Duggan — Answers, 16 Feb 1797
- Alexander Young v. John Menzies of Pitfoddles; George Turner — Information, 12 Jun 1765
- Alexander Young v. John Menzies of Pitfodles and George Turner — Information, 15 Apr 1765
- Alexander Æneas Grant v. Mrs Wilhelmina Chalmers or Walker — Summons, 30 Dec 1835 [2]
- Alexander — Cases, 27 Feb 1798
- Alexander, Duke of Gordon, v. The Commissioners for Managing the Forfeited Estates annexed to the Crown — Petition, 13 Jan 1772
- Alexander-Charles Maitland, & Others v. Dame Helen Maitland Gibson, & Spouse — Summons, 17 May 1830
- Allan & Son v. John Broadfoot — Bill of Suspension, 27 Jan 1830
- AND REVISED ANSWERS FOR ALEXANDER MEIN, Accountant in Glasgow, now Trustee on the Sequestrated Estate of WYLLIE and ARCHIBALD, Merchants in Glasgow, and of GEORGE WYLLIE and THOMAS
- Anderson v. Creditors of Arnot — Petition, 21 Jan 1792
- Andrew and Charles Stein v. William Hutchison — Answers, 23 Jun 1810
- Andrew Harvie v. George Wink — Appendix, 2 Jul 1847 [2]
- Andrew Livingston and Alexander Melville v. Thomas Newall — Petition, 19 Jan 1809
- Andrew Livingstone v. Thomas Newall — Answers, 3 Feb 1809
- Andrew Lockie, John Gray and Peter Ker v. John Mason — Petition, 23 Dec 1836
- Andrew M'Robbie and John Gowans v. James Adam, David Halley and his Wife — Condescendence, 2 Feb 1843
- Andrew Paterson v. William M'Lellan — Appendix to Petition, 2 Feb 1824
- Andrew Rome v. James Halden — Answers, 15 Feb 1831
- Andrew Steele v. John Thomson, Alexander Pratt, Sym Rollo and William Walker — Defences, 26 May 1814
- Andrew Thomson v. John M'Gill — Bill of Suspension, 12 Mar 1833 [2]
- Ann Sutherland v. David Johnston — Appendix, 26 Feb 1811
- Anne, Lady Petre, and others v. Martha Grove, and others — Replies, 2 Mar 1787
- ANS.—George Gibson TO THE PET.—D. and A. M'Donalds, &c. ANSWERS FOR GEORGE GIBSON, Merchant in Rotterdam, and his Attorney; TO THE PETITION of Donald M'Donald, and Alexander M'Dona