[]

Related Cases

Case Date Legal Subjects Abstract
Parish, &C v. Khones 7 Aug 1776 Foreign-creditors This case was about the effect in Scotland of foreign bankruptcy proceedings involving Joseph Turner, a merchant in Bremen, Germany. After Turner became bankrupt, creditors John Parish and John Henrich Schreiber & Co. arrested (i.e., attached) some yarn belonging to Mr. Turner, which had been consigned to merchants in Scotland. The yarn was subsequently released to three men who claimed to be trustees for Turner’s creditors: Jacob Khone, John Khone, and John Andrew Uhtoff Ludson, all merchants in Bremen. These trustees disposed of the yarn and initiated a court proceeding in Scotland to determine who was entitled to the proceeds. They claimed that Parish and Schreiber had acceded to the trust and therefore could not assert a preference based on their earlier arrestments. In support of this argument, the trustees relied on laws of Bremen which, they alleged, provided for the effects of a bankrupt to be taken into the management of the senate; some number of senators were then chosen as trustees by the creditors. The trustees also provided certificates from the Bremen senate describing the defenders’ participation in this process. The petitioners argued that this was not sufficient evidence of the trust, and that the trust had no effect in Scotland.
Thomas Stoddart v. M'Quan, Beck, and Company 28 Jul 1779 Foreign Merchant Around 1765 MacWhan, Beck, and Company participated in a number of smuggling adventures with Currie, Park, and Company. In 1768, David Currie pressed upon John Beck to accept a bill for £163 on the account kept between the two companies while carrying out their illegal activity. Currie, Beck, and Company later endorsed the bill to Thomas Stothart (Stoddart), who brought action against MacWhan, Beck, and Company for payment. The case came before Lord Auchinleck, and the petitioners argued that they had merely accepted the bill as a favor, and that it was cancelled out by sums they had earlier advanced. Lord Auchinleck ruled in their favor. The defenders appealed, arguing that the bill was tied to smuggled goods. They took note of the Court's recent decision in MacClure and MacCree v. Paterson, but Auchinleck again rejected their arguments. MacWhan, Beck, and Company then applied to the Court, arguing again that the bill was for an amount not actually owed, which had been spent in implement of a smuggling contract. The pursuer replied that the bill itself was proof that the sum was indeed owed, and that as foreign merchants they had merely engaged in free commerce abroad. The Court determined that a bill associated with smuggling could not be enforced, and ruled in favor of the defenders.
Thomas Wake and Attorney v. Hillary Bauerman & Son, and Jacob Runke Jacobs 7 Jul 1801 A ship belonging to pursuer Thomas Wake, "The Mary of Sunderland," was captured by a French privateer and taken to the Netherlands. The French Commissary of Marine and Commerce, sitting in Amsterdam, condemned the ship as a lawful prize. The ship was re-named the Stettin of Embden and sold to Defenders Hillary Bauerman and Son, who were subjects of Prussia. Subsequently, the ship sailed to the Firth of Forth, where it was seized and taken to Leith on suspicion of being enemy property. When Thomas Wake learned of the ship’s capture, he sought to reclaim it, arguing that the commissary had lacked jurisdiction to issue the condemnation order. Hillary Bauerman and Son argued that ownership of the ship was legally transferred by possession, and that in any case, the condemnation order was sufficient.
In re Jean Alexander 1779 Debt, Ranking of Creditors Jean Alexander, petitioner, held a bond on behalf of a French niece of her father, William Alexander, deceased Lord Provost of Edinburgh. The obligants on the bond were her brothers Robert and William. However, the former was deceased and the latter was bankrupt, and she had failed to produce her interest in time for a process of ranking upon William's estate. She petitioned the Court to have it inserted after the fact.
Eimbeke v. Morison, Taylor, and Company and Buchanan, Morison, and Company 1777 Trade, Foreign Trade, Wheat Buchanan, Morison, and Company was a trading firm with operations in Glasgow and Greenock. Two of the company's partners in Greenock, William Morison and James Taylor, were also partners of a separate firm, named Morison, Taylor, and Company. In the fall of 1774, Morison, Taylor, and Company commissioned George Henry Eimbeke, Hamburgh merchant, to send them several shipments of wheat and other grains. One of these shipments was placed on the George, a trading vessel owned by Buchanan, Morison, and Company. The latter company paid Eimbeke for half of this shipment, and Morison, Taylor, and Company were invoiced for the second half. The George arrived in Bristol in May 1775 and the wheat was discovered to have overheated; it was later sold at a great loss. Eimbeke brought action against the two firms, suing for the unpaid half of the George's wheat shipment. While Buchanan, Morison, and Company claimed that Morison, Taylor, and Company had expressly ordered Eimbeke to send them a shipment of wheat on the George, the latter company argued that no such order had ever been given. On November 14, 1777 the Court pronounced Buchanan, Morison, and Company liable for the value of the wheat and expenses. They then submitted a reclaiming petition, which was refused, according to handwritten marginalia on the case documents.