Two merchants in Virginia, Archibald Dunlop and David Ralston, owed money to James Dunlop, a merchant in Glasgow. James Dunlop, in turn, owed money to pursuer Robert Arthur. Arthur obtained a judgment against James Dunlop and arrestments for the debts Archibald Dunlop and Ralston owed to James Dunlop. Despite these arrestments, Archibald Dunlop then entered into a private contract with defenders Robert Hastie and James Jamieson, merchants in Glasgow. Archibald Dunlop sent from Virginia to Clyde a vessel with tobacco and goods consigned for Hastie and Jamieson. Arthur learned of this shipment, obtained letters of arrestment, and arrested the cargo before it came into the possession of Hastie and Jamieson. Hastie and Jamieson obtained letters of loosing to reclaim the cargo. Through a process of multiple poinding, the creditors of Archibald Dunlop disputed their respective rights and interests. Arthur claimed he has priority based on the outstanding debt Archibald Dunlop owed to James Dunlop. Hastie and Jamieson cited the private contract they executed with Archibald Dunlop.
William Morison, The Decisions of the Court of Session (1811), pg. 14209
Sir David Dalyrymple of Hailes, Decisions of the Lords of Council and Session, from 1766 to 1791 (1826), pg. 258
