1793
BankruptcyDebtCreditorAdjudicationReductionArrestmentAlexander Penrose Cuming and other creditors of Thomas Dunbar of Westfield had obtained an interlocutor voiding, under the 1621 Act, a bond of corroboration granted by the bankrupt to Sir James Grant of Grant, Baronet, as a fraudulent preference. Grant petitioned for reconsideration, contending the bond was merely a lawful acknowledgment of debt and not a preference. The creditors answered, defending the interlocutor and responding to Grant's claims regarding the validity of the instrument.AI-generated
Documents in this case (3)
- Creditors of Dunbar v. Grant — Petition, 8 Mar 1793Petitioner seeks reconsideration of interlocutor voiding bond of corroboration under 1621 Act, arguing it was lawful debt acknowledgment, not fraudulent preference.
- Sir James Grant v. Alexander Penrose Cuming — Answers, 21 May 1793May 21, 1793 Answers by Alexander Penrose Cuming and others, creditors of Thomas Dunbar of Westfield, to the petition of Sir James Grant of Grant, Baronet, responding to claims based on a bond of corroboration granted b…
People & places in this case
People involved
- Colquhoun Grant — Party
- Sir James Grant, 8th Baronet of Grant — Party
- Robert Archibald — Party
- Alexander Oliphant — Party
- Allan Maconochie, Lord Meadowbank — Advocate for Party
- Sir James Mackenzie, of Royston, Lord Royston — Lord Ordinary
