The trustees for the creditors of David Sibbald held an auction to sell a portion of Sibbald’s effects. At the auction, John Carnegie purchased a stack of wheat and transferred it to the petitioner, Thomas Robertson. Carnegie and Robertson did not grant a bill to the trustees for the price of the wheat, and the trustees eventually raised an action before the sheriff for payment, damages, and expenses. Robertson raised a counter-proceeding, alleging that the trustees owed him payment for certain business matters. The parties engaged in extensive litigation, leading to an order by the Lord Ordinary stating that Robertson had engaged in “manifestly improper conduct” and finding him liable for expenses. Robertson challenged this order on two grounds. First, he argued that his legal actions were justified. Second, he argued that the trustees were not competent to pursue the action because they had already been denuded of their trust. The trustees disputed these claims.
People involved
- Thomas Robertson — Suspender
- William Robertson, of Middlefield — Charger
- George Johnston — Charger
- James Bell — Named in case documents
- Edward McCormick — Advocate for Suspender
- William Craig, Lord Craig — Advocate for Charger
- Francis Garden, Lord Gardenstone — Lord Ordinary
- Henry Home, of Kames, Lord Kames — Lord Ordinary
- David Sibbald — Named in case documents
- George Johnston — Named in case documents
- William Robertson, of Middlefield — Named in case documents
- James Bell — Named in case documents
- Robert Johnston — Named in case documents
- John Carnegie — Pursuer
- John Stevenson — Named in case documents
- William Jack — Named in case documents
- David Melvill — Named in case documents
- George Steel, of Baldestard — Named in case documents
Places
The trustees for the creditors of David Sibbald held an auction to sell a portion of Sibbald’s effects. At the auction, John Carnegie purchased a stack of wheat and transferred it to the petitioner, Thomas Robertson. Carnegie and Robertson did not grant a bill to the trustees for the price of the wheat, and the trustees eventually raised an action before the sheriff for payment, damages, and expenses. Robertson raised a counter-proceeding, alleging that the trustees owed him payment for certain business matters. The parties engaged in extensive litigation, leading to an order by the Lord Ordinary stating that Robertson had engaged in “manifestly improper conduct” and finding him liable for expenses. Robertson challenged this order on two grounds. First, he argued that his legal actions were justified. Second, he argued that the trustees were not competent to pursue the action because they had already been denuded of their trust. The trustees disputed these claims.
