Robert Cowan and Company, creditors on a bill accepted by John Farie, sought to have Farie’s movable effects sequestrated. Cowan & Co. argued that sequestration was appropriate when a debtor’s movable estate was the subject of a poinding or when the debtor was imprisoned; both criteria applied to Farie. The respondents opposed sequestration on several grounds, including the following: (1) Farie received no value for the bill; (2) Farie was under interdiction when he accepted the bill; and (3) Farie’s movable estate was exhausted by higher-ranked creditors. When the case was argued, the parties agreed to suspend the proceeding while the respondents found caution for Farie’s debt. However, after a dispute about the form of the caution, Cowan & Co. submitted a second petition for sequestration and expenses.
Documents in this case (6)
- Cowan v. Farie and Others — Petition, 6 Jan 1781January 6, 1781 Petition of the petitioners asking the Court to grant warrant for citing John Fairie to appear in Court and, if no cause shown, to sequestrate his personal estate under the Act of 1772.
- Cowan v. Farie and Others — Replies, 5 Feb 1781February 5, 1781 Petition of the creditors of John Fairie of Farm, asking the Court to permit a sequestration of his moveable estate under the statute, as he is imprisoned and his effects have been poinded.
- Cowan v. Farie and Others — Answers, 12 Feb 1781February 12, 1781 Petition of John Farie, asking the Court to remit the sequestration of his effects on grounds of gratuitous debt and interdiction
- Cowan v. Farie and Others — Duplies, 14 Feb 1781February 14, 1781 Answers by the respondents to the petition of Mess. Cowan and Company, responding to the claim that John Farie accepted bills post-interdiction
- Cowan v. Farie and Others — Petition, 5 Jul 1781July 5, 1781 Petition of Robert Cowan and company, asking the Court to permit sequestration of John Fairie's personal estate under statute for insolvent debtors
- Cowan v. Farie and Others — Answers, 31 Jul 1781July 31, 1781 Answers by the respondents to the petition of Robert Cowan and Company, arguing that the bill in question is fraudulent, under reduction, and invalid as accepted by an interdicted person without consent.
People & places in this case
People involved
- Robert Cowan and Company — Petitioner
- John Farie, of Farme — Respondent
- James Farie, of Farme — Respondent
- Claud Marshall — Respondent
- George White, of Bankhead — Respondent
- James Sommers — Advocate for Petitioner
- William Craig, Lord Craig — Advocate for Petitioner
- John Morthland, of Rindmuir — Advocate for Respondent
- David Ross, Lord Ankerville, 3rd of Inverchasley — Lord Ordinary
- Robert MacQueen, Lord Braxfield — Lord Ordinary
- Alexander Lockhart, Lord Covington — Lord Ordinary
- Neil Macvicar — Named in case documents
- James Farie — Named in case documents
- Merchant Banking Company of Glasgow — Named in case documents
- Andrew Stuart, W.S., of Craigthorn and Castlemilk — Named in case documents
- Lieutenant James Farie — Named in case documents
