1788–1789
SequestrationCreditorBankruptcyDebtBill of ExchangeAlimentGeorge sought restitution of barley he had delivered to Alexander Dewar, an insolvent debtor who was actively seeking sequestration, alleging that Dewar had acted in mala fide. William Christie, a Stirling merchant, petitioned to alter the court’s interlocutor, asserting that his bill for the barley equated to cash and that he stood as a common creditor. The creditors of Dewar’s sequestrated estate answered Christie’s condescendence, contending that the grain had been fraudulently delivered to the bankrupt.AI-generated
Documents in this case (3)
- George v. Christie — Petition, 25 Jan 1788Petitioner seeks restitution of barley delivered to insolvent debtor who was actively seeking sequestration and thus acted in mala fide.
- George v. Christie — Petition, 8 Mar 1788William Christie, Stirling merchant, petitions March 8, 1788 to alter court’s interlocutor, arguing his bill for barley equals cash and he’s a common creditor.
- Thomas George v. William Christie — Answers, 26 Feb 1789February 26, 1789 Answers by the creditors of the sequestrated estate of Alexander Dewar, responding to the condescendence of William Christie, merchant in Stirling, that the grain was fraudulently delivered to a bankru…
People & places in this case
People involved
- James Scott, of Scalloway — Party
- William Craig, Lord Craig — Party
- Sir James Colquhoun, of Luss, 2nd Baronet of Great Britain — Party
- Edward Armstrong — Advocate for Party
