1795–1796
DebtBankruptcySequestrationCreditorBill of ExchangePromissory noteAlexander Nairne, trustee for the sequestrated estate of Peter and Francis Forrester, opposed Thomas Cranstoun’s petition to alter Lord Methven’s interlocutor and rank A. Laidlaw’s undiscounted bills in the estate. Nairne contended that Laidlaw’s failure to discount the bills forfeited double-ranking rights, while Cranstoun sought the alteration to allow the ranking. The respondent argued that the transaction between Forrester and Laidlaw constituted an equal exchange of obligations and that the interlocutor should not be altered.AI-generated
Documents in this case (4)
- Cranstoun — Petition, 11 Jun 1795June 11, 1795 Petition of the Trustee for A. Laidlaw's Creditors, asking the Court to alter Lord Methven's interlocutor
- Thomas Cranstoun v. Alexander Nairne — Answers, 2 Jul 1795Alexander Nairne, trustee for Peter and Francis Forrester’s sequestrated estate, opposes Thomas Cranstoun’s petition to rank Mr. Laidlaw’s undiscounted bills, claiming Laidlaw’s failure to discount forfeits double-ranki…
- Nairne — Petition, 3 Dec 1795December 3, 1795 Petition of Charles Hay asking the Court to alter its interlocutor concerning the ranking of promissory notes granted by Peter Forrester to Alexander Laidlaw
- Alexander Nairne v. Thomas Cranstoun — Answers, 2 Jan 1796January 2, 1796 Information of the respondent, arguing that the transaction between Forrester and Laidlaw was an equal exchange of obligations and that the interlocutor should not be altered
People & places in this case
People involved
- Thomas Cranstoun — Party
- William Nairne, Lord Dunsinnan — Party
- Thomas Walker Baird — Advocate for Party
- Charles Hay, of Newton, Lord Newton — Advocate for Party
- William Tait — Advocate for Party
- David Smythe, Lord Methven — Lord Ordinary
- Alexander Murray, Lord Henderland — Lord Ordinary
