AI-transcribed

An attachment of money or goods belonging to the debtor, as owing by or in the hands of a garnishee. But it may not only be obtained after judgment, when it is called an Arrestment in Execution, but during the progress of an action, when it is called an Arrestment on the Dependence,—or at the commencement of an action against a foreigner, when the Court has not otherwise jurisdiction over him, and when it is therefore called an Arrestment ad jurisdictionem fundandam. In any case it may be "loosed" on application of the debtor, either simply, when it nad been improperly obtained, or on the debtor depositing the amount of the debt in Court, or giving security for it. If not loosed the arrestment is carried into effect, on the debt being established, by an action against the holder of the money or goods, called an action of forthcoming.

Definition source
Kinnear, J. B., Digest of House of Lords Cases Decided on Appeal from Scotland, 1709-1864 — Glossary of Scottish Law Terms (Edinburgh, 1865). Public domain.

Legal Subject: Arrestment

Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
Messrs Peters, Bogle, and Marshall, arresting Creditors of James Dunlop, late Merchant in Glasgow v. Messrs Speirs, Blackburn, and Syme, Trustees of said James Dunlop 1770 Trustees, Debt, Bankruptcy, Arrestment, Possession, Deed Pursuers Thomas Peter, William Bogle, and Robert Marshall were creditors of James Dunlop, merchant of Glasgow. Defenders Speirs, Blackburn, and Andrew Syme were Dunlop's trustees. Shortly after granting trust-rights to Speirs, Blackburn, and Syme, Dunlop went bankrupt. The pursuers refused to bind themselves to Dunlop's trust, preferring instead the ordinary remedies of law to collect their debts. The pursuers arrested quantities of tobacco and hogshead staves from Dunlop's ship, en route from Virginia to Port Glasgow. At issue in this case was the validity of the trust-deed granted by James Dunlop, and the effects of it. According to the pursuers' interpretation of The Bankrupt Act of 1696 the deed was void and ineffectual because it was granted in a foreign country. The trustees argued that the deed was effectual and a valid title in their favor.
A. Keltie v. R. Wilson 1827 Debt, Poinding, Sist, Inhibition, Diligence, Arrestment Andrew Keltie of Gelvan petitioned the Court against Robert Wilson, writer in Edinburgh, seeking relief from an illegal poinding executed in violation of a court-ordered stay. Keltie alleged that Wilson had poinded during a sist on a bill of suspension, breaching procedural protections and amounting to contempt of court. The litigation proceeded from an initial petition for redress to a Revised Case arguing that such poinding during suspension constituted contempt.
Addis v. Shaw 1788 Debt, Bankruptcy, Aliment, Arrestment, Sequestration, Trustee George and Henry Addis, creditors of Angus Shaw, pursued Shaw and Alexander Macpherson, trustee, reporting on new production and a minute required by the Court. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Agnes Watson, and James Taylor, her Husband v. Agnes Mathie, and James Weir, her Husband 1775 Debts to estate, Tutors and Curators, Debt, Intromission, Aliment, Arrestment Greenock merchant James Watson, the father of pursuer Agnes Watson, died leaving three minor children. The children chose several curators to manage their affairs, including two of James’s business partners, Robert Rae and Gabriel Mathie. Robert Rae took on primary responsibility for the curatorship. After the Watson children came of age, they sued the curators for mishandling the estate. The proceeding stretched over many years, and after the curators died, Agnes Watson continued the action against their representatives; one such representative was defender Agnes Mathie, daughter of Gabriel. Agnes Mathie initially failed to participate in the case, but after being held liable in a sheriff’s judgment, she raised several defenses. First, Mathie claimed that the pursuers had orally renounced any claims against her father. Second, Mathie argued that certain sums were received by Robert Rae without the authority of a quorum, and that the other curators should not be held responsible. Finally, Mathie argued that Rae had received certain payments in his private capacity as manager of a mercantile venture with James Watson. According to Mathie, Rae had good credit, so there was no reason to punish the other curators for failing to collect what he owed to Watson. In response, Agnes Watson argued that the curators were liable for failing to exercise diligence in collecting open debts.
Aitken and Others v. Wilson and Bannatyne 1779 Birly court, Jurisdiction, Riot, Arrestment, Caution, Wrongous Imprisonment This case was about a “birly court”: a voluntary association of small proprietors and tenants that regulated property lines and common pasturages in their neighborhood. The birly court in Elsrighill (Elsrickle) levied a fine on one of its members, John Wilson. When Wilson refused to pay, the court’s elected officers seized two of his pewter plates. Wilson complained to the sheriff of Lanarkshire, alleging that the birly court lacked authority to take such an action. The sheriff-substitute, John Bannatyne, found that the officers were guilty of a riot and had them detained. In response, the officers sued both Wilson and Bannatyne for wrongful imprisonment.
Alexander Bennet v. David Maxwell 1787 Tack, Arrestment, Debt, Lease, Rent, Sasine Alexander Bennet, as pursuer, challenged a tenant’s missive as invalid for lacking formality or stamp, and David Maxwell, as defender, responded asserting the missive’s validity under pacta esse servanda. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Alexander Cuming v. Alexander Macdonald, Esq. 1801 Minor, Debt, Aliment, Arrestment, Succession, Creditor In a process of ranking and sale, Alexander Cuming sought to be ranked on a bill that was signed by the decedent, James Macdonald, three months before James came of age. The common agent raised an objection based on James's minority, and the Lord Ordinary sustained it. Cuming sought further review, making several arguments for enforcing the bill: (1) the funds were advanced for James's benefit, (2) James accepted the bill while exercising a profession, and (3) James's father joined in accepting the bill.
Alexander Fergusson, and Others v. The Magistrates of Glasgow 1781 Tack, Arrestment, Reduction, Charter, Tax, Sequestration The pursuers, who were also suspenders in a related action, challenged the authority of the magistrates of Glasgow to impose a duty on potatoes.
Alexander Fyffe v. James John Fraser 1832 Debt, Aliment, Arrestment, Succession, Trust, Trustees Dr Alexander Fyffe, surgeon in Haddington and pursuer, presented a reclaiming note asking the Court to alter the interlocutor and remit the bill for suspension and interdict in his case against James John Fraser, defender. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Alexander Melvil v. James Barclay 1777 Currente Termino, Ranking of Creditors, Arrestment, Void Poinding, Debt, Bankruptcy This case concerns a competition between Alexander Melvil and the other creditors of James Davie, brewer in Cupar, whose affairs went into disorder in the summer of 1775. Davie's moveable effects were sold by public roup (auction) that September, under the authority of the Sheriff of Fife. Alexander Melvil had previously executed a void poinding on these effects and entered a claim to them on this basis, which the Sheriff rejected. After the poinding was carried out by Robert Stark, the sequestrator, Melvil contested the goods once again. On August 5, 1777, Lord Braxfield found Melvil's claims to the goods preferable to Davie's other creditors and servant's wages. The other creditors of Davie then petitioned the Court to review Braxfield's interlocutors. In addition to asking the court to deny Melvil's claim, they also argued that the wages of James Barclay, late servant to James Davie, formed a disadvantage case, and should be given preference. The Court ruled that wages were to be considered privileged debts, and preferable to Melvil's claim.
Alexander Mudie v. John Ouchterlony 1766 Mandate, Debt, Rent, Lease, Arrestment, Proof Pursuer Alexander Mudie claimed that Alexander Ouchterlony had verbally commissioned him to purchase a tenement in Arbroath without disclosing that Oucterlony was his principal. Mudie was sued in connection with the deal and, in turn, raised an action against Ouchterlony; however, Ouchterlony died while the litigation was pending. Mudie then renewed the process against Ouchterlony’s representatives. They denied any knowledge of the commission and argued that it could only be proved by a writing.
Alexanders vs. Gordons 1773 Copartnership, Debt, Aliment, Arrestment, Sequestration, Bankruptcy This case involved a copartnery formed by members of the Alexander family and members of the Gordon family. The purpose of the copartnery was to manufacture dye using a method developed by George Gordon. After pursuing this business for a number of years, the Alexanders alleged that they had become substantial creditors of the copartnery. Accordingly, the Alexanders brought actions in Scottish court and eventually obtained a writ from the Court of King’s Bench in England. They also sought to dissolve the copartnery. In response, the Gordons raised an action for damages incurred as a result of the allegedly illegal proceedings instigated by the Alexanders; the Gordons also sought sums allegedly due to them in connection with the copartnery. As a result of this suit, the Gordons obtained an inhibition against the Alexanders. Robert and William Alexander petitioned the court to recall the inhibition, and later asked the court to sequester the assets of the copartnery.
Anderson v. Creditors of Arnot 1792 Arrestment, Trustee, Creditor, Multiple-Poinding, Assignation, Debt Lilias Anderson, as pursuer, petitioned against an interlocutor issued by Lord Dregborn in her case against the creditors of Arnot. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Andrew Heron v. Patrick Heron 1774 Debt, Arrestment, Sequestration, Inhibition, Process, Reduction Doctor Andrew Heron of Bargaly, pursuer, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor in his action against Patrick Heron, defender. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Andrew v. Murdoch 1803 Wrongful imprisonment, Due process, Arrestment, Sequestration, Interlocutor, Wrongous Imprisonment The pursuer raised an action of wrongful imprisonment against the defender, Sheriff-Substitute, and challenged the interlocutor that ordered his incarceration. The pursuer argued that the defender violated the Act of 1701, by not giving a deliverance on the petition for bail within the required time, and also by not admitting the pursuer to bail when he was accused of a bailable offense. The purpose of the act was to protect people from oppressive acts by those entrusted with executive or ministerial authority.
Archbishop of York, and Others v. Haldane 1769 Highways, Aliment, Arrestment, Succession, Property, Sequestration After purchasing the estate of Airthrey, Captain Robert Haldane sought to close a road that crossed the property. Residents and property owners in the parishes of Callender, Kincardine, Kilmadock, Dunblane, Leckropt, and Logie objected that the road was a necessary public highway that provided the most expedient route to coalfields in the vicinity of Alloa. The case materials refer to many locations in the affected countryside, describe the history of the road, and name numerous deponents who discussed their use of the road and other matters relevant to the case.
Archibald and James Robertson v. John Laird 1790 Adjudication, Arrestment, Aliment, Inhibition, Insurance, Defamation Thomas Cochran, weaver in Leith, filed answers to the petition of Margaret Clark, spouse of James Greig, sailor in Leith, responding to allegations of riot and damage. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Archibald Cooper v. Sir William Maxwell 1775 Tack, Rent, Aliment, Interlocutor, Lease, Arrestment In this case, the parties disputed the boundaries of tack that included a lime-work. Archibald Cooper alleged that Sir William Maxwell of Calderwood had encroached on his tack, and therefore sought to have Maxwell's work enjoined.
Barr v. Buchanan 1780 Suspension, Arrestment, Inhibition, Courts James Barr brought a bill of suspension seeking his release from prison. Barr alleged that he had been imprisoned because of the “groundless prejudice” of James Buchanan of Drumpellier, a justice of the peace. He also cited procedural irregularities. However, Buchanan alleged that Barr had caused a number of disturbances for reasons stemming from his mental illness. Buchanan argued that Barr’s friends should find security for the suspender’s future conduct and conduct him to a safe place.
Belch [Belsh] v. Wilson and Son 1788 Arrestment, Creditor, Bill of Exchange, Forgery, Debt, Sequestration Peter Belsh, a merchant in Stirling, charged William Wilson and Son, merchants in Bannockburn, over a discounted bill involving indorsers. Wilson and Son suspended the charge and subsequently submitted an information contending that their subscription to the promissory note was a forgery and therefore void.
Bell v. Magistrates of Glasgow 1776 Property, Sasine, Interlocutor, Adjudication, Aliment, Arrestment Pursuer Patrick Bell was the proprietor of a piece of land called Bellshaugh or Provost Haugh, situated along the River Clyde near Glasgow Green. Additionally, Bell claimed to own a small strip of land that was used for access to Bellshaugh. The magistrates of Glasgow purchased property on either side of this strip and sought to enclose the entire area. Bell protested, and the magistrates proposed two possible solutions. First, citing an Act of Parliament, they offered to build a fence on either side of the road and charge Bell for half of the construction cost. Alternatively, they proposed to erect a gate that could be used to access the road. Bell refused both proposals, claiming that the cited statute did not apply and that he had an absolute right to exclude the magistrates. The magistrates maintained that either accommodation—the fence or the gate—would be reasonable and equitable; they also suggested that Bell might only hold a servitude.
Bell v. Rutherford 1793 Debt, Lease, Tack, Bankruptcy, Aliment, Arrestment Suit over fees for repairs of houses on the lands of Scraesburgh, part of the estate of Hunthill. In 1787, James Bell (Petitioner) signed a tack to lease the lands in Scraesburgh from Captain Rutherford (Defender/respondent). He signed a clause which stipulated that he accepted the houses “in a habitable and tenantable condition” as they were left by Robert Dickieson, the previous tenant. Mr. Bell argues that this clause was fraudulent because Mr. Dickieson did not leave the homes in a habitable condition. Bell received a judgment against Mr. Dickieson to pay for the repairs, but Dickieson went bankrupt, Dickieson’s trustees refused to pay, and the houses remained in disrepair for three years. In February, 1790, Captain Rutherford sold his estate to Benjamin Bell, who then sued James Bell for the condition of the houses. James Bell sued to hold Captain Rutherford liable for the repairs. In 1792, Lord Dunsinnan found for defender, and James Bell appeals.
Benjamin Greig v. John Scott 1829 Debt, Arrestment, Creditor, Disposition, Sasine, Sale Benjamin Greig, as pursuer, sought declarator, multiplepoinding, and exoneration against defender John Scott with respect to lands conveyed under bond to secure a £3000 debt, following unsuccessful sale attempts and disputes regarding title. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Benson, &c. v. Stark, &c. 1793 Debt, Aliment, Arrestment, Tack, Interlocutor, Oath Reuben Benson, William Benson, John Murdoch, and John M'Pherson, as pursuers, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor in their action against Stark and the other defenders. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Bernard Love v. George Foster 1832 Arrestment, Sequestration, Rent, Caution, Aliment, Factor Bernard Love, as pursuer, lodged a reclaiming note against Lord Moncreiff's interlocutor in his action against George Foster, defender. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Blyth v. Lord Dreghorn's Interlocutor 1789 Debt, Adjudication, Creditor, Arrestment, Aliment, Succession Walter Blyth, as pursuer, presented a petition challenging an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Dreghorn. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Brebner v. Brebner 1767 Arrestment, Cautioner, Aliment, Executor, Suspension, Debt Helen Brebner, as executor for her deceased husband, gave her brother, Alexander Brebner, use of select estate funds. Helen won an action to retrieve this money from Alexander, and he challenged this judgment. Helen's husband, James Frigge, died in 1756, after naming Helen executor of his considerable finances, which consisted mainly of bills and bonds. When Helen received money for payments of debts due to her former husband, she allowed her brother Alexander use of these funds. Helen claimed that she put the money in Alexander's hands after he advised her that allowing him to invest the money in trade would increase the funds. Helen argued that as Alexander's credit declined and as he fell into debt, she sought to get back the money, which he refused. Alexander claimed, alternatively, that Helen had put the money in his hands for security as she drew on him for funds as needed. Eventually, Alexander argued, he became dissatisfied with Helen's management of the finances and refused to allow Helen any additional money. Alexander offered Alexander Ogilvie of Culvie as his cautioner, to which Helen did not consent based on the state of his finances.
Briggs v. Stark and Balfour 1778 Hypothec, Arrestment, Debt, Rent, Sequestration, Creditor This case was about the effect of a landlord’s “hypothec,” which was a right to retain or recover the fruits of leased property as security for rent. David Peebles, a tenant, fell behind on rent that was due to his landlord, Janet Balfour. Balfour obtained a Sheriff’s decree to sequester Peebles’s crops; the order covered the current year’s rent, as well as past and future years. Defender Robert Stark, as sequestrator, auctioned off the crops and used the proceeds to compensate Balfour. However, John Briggs, another creditor of Peebles, challenged Balfour’s right to anything more than the current year’s rent. Stark and Balfour responded that the Sheriff’s decree entitled Balfour to any proceeds up to the amount of her entire claim. The Sheriff found no balance due by Stark to Peebles, and Briggs' arrestment was rendered useless. Briggs then submitted his case to the Court of Session by bill of advocation, and it came before Lord Alva. Alva ultimately repelled the reasons of advocation and Briggs petitioned the Court to alter this decision. Marginalia on the case documents indicates that the Court may have indeed altered Alva's decision.
Brown v. Maxwell 1772 Ministers, Adjudication, Aliment, Arrestment, Contract, Property rights The pursuer, Richard Brown, was a minister in Lochmaben. He claimed that the magistrates of the burgh harbored ill will towards him and sought to inconvenience or harass him. Among other actions, the magistrates ordered a barn on Brown's property to be destroyed, removed trees from his glebe, and reduced his seating in the kirk (church). The Lord Ordinary found that the destruction of the barn was a legitimate action authorized by the parish of Lochmaben's heritors. Brown sought a review of the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor. He argued that while he had struck an agreement with the defenders to remove the barn, they had agreed to do so at a later date. The defenders sought to avoid liability damages by claiming that they had only followed the heritors' instructions.
Cadell v. Johnstone 1798 Defamation, Arrestment, Libel, Proof, Aliment, Interlocutor John Cadell of Cockenzie pursued John Johnstone, printer in Edinburgh. Johnstone petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor, and Cadell filed answers opposing the petition. The defender subsequently submitted evidence in support of his libel claim against Cadell, detailing alleged violence and misconduct during Tranent militia enforcement.
Campbell v. Easterby 1797 Arrestment, Debt, Sequestration, Creditor, Reduction, Interlocutor James Campbell petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor regarding an arrested vessel, and George Easterby answered, arguing that Campbell’s bond of caution did not conform to the Admiral’s interlocutor and that the arrestment had caused no diminution in the ship’s value. The dispute thus turned on the sufficiency of the security offered and the effect of the seizure upon the vessel’s valuation.
Campbell v. Stuart 1794 Sasine, Libel, Teinds, Reversion, Prescription, Arrestment Andrew Stuart petitioned against an interlocutor of Lord Frederick Campbell that assoilzied Campbell from the counter-action raised by Stuart. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Chalmers v. Lord Stonefield's Interlocutor 1798 Debt, Arrestment, Creditor, Trustees, Expenses, Tack Thomas Chalmers petitioned the Court to overturn an interlocutor issued by Lord Stonefield. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Children of Macneil v. Reps. of Campbell, et al 1793 Succession, Wadset, Aliment, Arrestment, Debt, Creditor
Clay v. Coulter 1770 Debt, Adjudication, Arrestment, Insurance, Interlocutor, Reduction Pursuers Clay and Midgley, merchants in Liverpool, purchased tobacco on several occasions from McKittrick and Company, located in Virginia. To pay a balance due to Clay and Midgley, McKittrick and Company sent a shipment of tobacco to them in November 1761. Clay and Midgley obtained insurance on this shipment from defender James Coulter, a merchant in Glasgow. The ship sailed from Virginia for Liverpool, but it was captured by a French privateer in February 1762. Learning of the capture, Clay and Midgley sought to recover their losses from the insurance policy. Coulter insisted on retaining the sums he underwrote in the insurance policy, claiming that he was also a creditor of the McKittrick Company. Coulter argued that the insurance payments were debt payments to him. He contended that the cargo remained the property of McKittrick and Company until it was delivered at Liverpool to the consignees. As such, the cargo was claimable by creditors. Clay and Midgley respond that, under the established law of merchants, the consignees had an exclusive interest in the goods that the consignor's creditors could not defeat.
Clifford and Sons v. Mosman 1772 Poinding, Arrestment, Ranking of Creditors, Debt, Bankruptcy, Aliment John Syme and Son, merchants in Leith, owed money to Clifford and Son, pursuer, merchants in Amsterdam. Due to the nature of the transaction, the money was required to pass through the hands of William Hogg and Son, merchants in Edinburgh. (In the transaction, another person, Archibald Maclean, advanced money to William Hogg and Son, which they in turn gave to John Syme and Son. McLean was then reimbursed by Clifford and Son). William Hogg and Son subsequently encounter financial problems, which raised the possibility that its creditors would to collect the money. Clifford and Son sought to avoid this possibility. Hugh Mosman, a writer in Edinburgh and creditor of William Hogg and Son, claimed an interest in the payment from John Syme and Son to William Hogg and Son. Clifford and Son disputed Mosman's claim by arguing that they were entitled to the payment because they provided the funds in the first place.
Colvill v. M'Ewan 1793 Debt, Aliment, Arrestment, Proof, Jurisdiction, Oath Lieutenant George Colvill petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor finding him liable to M'Ewan for damages and expenses for allegedly harbouring an apprentice who absconded. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Competition Among the Creditors of Macfarlane 1766 Debt, Arrestment, Shipping, Aliment, Interlocutor, Creditor This case was a dispute among the creditors of David Macfarlane, a merchant of St. Christophers (St. Kitts). In 1764, Macfarlane sent a shipment of sugar from St. Croix to Port Glasgow, consigning it to James King. Macfarlane instructed King to sell the sugar and apply the proceeds to pay certain of Macfarlane’s creditors, who were set forth in a list. When the sugar arrived in Scotland, however, some of Macfarlane’s creditors sought an arrestment. This led to a competition among Macfarlane’s creditors. In the course of the proceeding, the Lord Ordinary ruled that the consigned sugar could not be arrested, and a group of joint petitioners sought review. In August 1766, the Court of Session ruled against them. In November 1766, Messrs. Greenshiels and Wardrope petitioned the court again, this time on their own, arguing that they should be treated differently from other creditors because they did not receive notice of the shipment. In December 1766 the Court adhered to its earlier interlocutor.
Cowan v. Farie and Others 1781 Sequestration, Debt, Creditor, Bill of Exchange, Arrestment, Interdiction Robert Cowan and Company, creditors on a bill accepted by John Farie, sought to have Farie’s movable effects sequestrated. Cowan & Co. argued that sequestration was appropriate when a debtor’s movable estate was the subject of a poinding or when the debtor was imprisoned; both criteria applied to Farie. The respondents opposed sequestration on several grounds, including the following: (1) Farie received no value for the bill; (2) Farie was under interdiction when he accepted the bill; and (3) Farie’s movable estate was exhausted by higher-ranked creditors. When the case was argued, the parties agreed to suspend the proceeding while the respondents found caution for Farie’s debt. However, after a dispute about the form of the caution, Cowan & Co. submitted a second petition for sequestration and expenses.
Crawford, et al v. Wilson, et al 1794 Justices of Peace, Interdict, Statute, Common Law, Arrestment, Suspension
Crawfords v. Russell, et al 1789 Succession, Aliment, Trustee, Debt, Arrestment, Disposition Agnes and Margaret Crawfurds, as pursuers, argued that they were absolute fiars during their lives and that their children were heirs to the sums bequeathed in fee. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Creditors for William Hunter v. David Armstrong and William Johnstone 1778 Bankruptcy, Creditor, Debt, Aliment, Fraud, Arrestment Creditors of the bankrupt William Hunter, joined by His Majesty’s Advocate, pursued David Armstrong, advocate, and William Johnstone, writer to the signet, as art and part guilty of Hunter’s fraudulent bankruptcy and the concealment of his effects following Hunter’s flight from Scotland in 1777. The pursuers alleged that the defenders had assisted in secret transactions and the hiding of assets to the prejudice of creditors, while Armstrong and Johnston denied complicity, maintaining they had acted on counsel and in good faith. The litigation proceeded through mutual condescendences, answers denying fraud, and repeated petitions and reclaiming petitions concerning the relevancy of proof and the Court’s interlocutors.
Creditors of Dunbar v. Grant 1793 Bankruptcy, Debt, Creditor, Adjudication, Reduction, Arrestment Alexander 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.
Creditors of Kenneth Mackenzie v. His Children 1792 Creditor, Adjudication, Statute, Arrestment, Debt, Interlocutor The creditors of Kenneth Mackenzie, as pursuers, contended against his children, as defenders, that adjudications made without intimation were void and null, as set forth in the Information of John Peter du Rouvray and others. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Creditors of Newlands v. Mackenzie 1792 Creditor, Debt, Proof, Arrestment, Reduction, Bill of Exchange Andrew Mackenzie petitioned the Court to alter the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor requiring him to produce title-deeds before receiving payment of his account. The creditors of Newlands answered that Mackenzie ought to be paid without producing the writings.
Cunningham & Co. v. Craigie 1789 Insurance, Arrestment, Deviation, Creditor, Debt, Prize William Cunningham and Company, merchants in Glasgow, pursued Laurence Craigie and other insurers to overturn Lord Dreghorn's interlocutor that assoilzied the defenders, seeking recovery under a 1783 policy. The defenders answered that the policy was void for concealment of a voyage to Charlestown carrying British troops and for material alteration of the terms from a voyage to St Thomas. The pursuers subsequently petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor, while the respondents denied any knowing intent to deviate to Charlestown and maintained that the policy covered only the voyage to St Thomas with a convoy call serving as a risk-reducing clause.
Cunningham and Simpson v. Sir George Home, Baronet, and the Commissioners for raising Seamen at the Port of Leith 1795 Debt, Arrestment, Statute, Common Law, Contract, Jurisdiction Cunningham and Simpson petitioned the Court to alter the interlocutor of Lord Dreghorn, Ordinary on the bills, which had refused a bill of suspension in the matter of apprentices Dowie, Stewart, and Drysdale. They subsequently sought suspension of the judgment and interdict against Sir George Home, Baronet, and the Commissioners for raising Seamen at the Port of Leith, and their officers, regarding the levying and carrying away of apprentices Dowie and Stewart.
Cunynghame and Gray v. Whitefoord 1796 Succession, Sequestration, Reduction, Aliment, Arrestment, Possession Francis Cunynghame, Esquire, and Gray pursued Sir John Whitefoord, Baronet, seeking sequestration of the estate of Dunduff and an order remitting to Lord Dreghorn Ordinary to name a factor. Whitefoord answered, arguing that Cunynghame had no legal claim to the estate and that sequestration was inappropriate given the defender's lawful possession and feudal titles. The dispute thus turned on whether sequestration should be granted in the face of competing assertions of right and possession.
David and Hugh Mitchell v. William Ferguson 1779 Arrestment, Bill of Exchange, Assignation, Creditor, Disposition, Debt These case documents constitute a prelude to the reported case of David and Hugh Mitchell v. William Ferguson. In 1769, Agnes Carsan purchased a house in Ayr from William Donald. Because she believed her son-in-law to be holding money for the house on her behalf, no bills or securities were filed, and the disposition of the house was held by James Fergusson, Provost and writer in Ayr. Later William Donald became bankrupt and arrestments (securities) were laid in the hands of Carsan and Hair-Campbell. William Ferguson, claiming that he had paid Donald for the price of the house on behalf of Carsan, brought action against Carsan for either a disposition of the house or repayment. On March 3, 1779 the Court ruled that Ferguson was entitled to either the price or a disposition on the house. Donald's creditors, David and Hugh Mitchell, later brought action, in competition with Fergusson for rights to the house. On February 13, 1781 the Court determined that the infeftment (legal claim) possessed by the Mitchells was preferable to the personal right claimed by Fergusson.
David Clyne v. James Trail and David Hendersson, (Williamson's Trustees) 1830 Debt, Arrestment, Creditor, Assignation, Trustee, Sequestration David Clyne raised a summons of forthcoming against James Traill, trustee for the creditors of the late Lieutenant-Colonel Benjamin Williamson, and David Henderson, factor, to recover funds held in trust for Kenneth Fraser. Traill and Henderson defended the action on the ground that they were not in possession of the funds at the time of the arrestment. They subsequently lodged a reclaiming note asking the Court to alter the interlocutor of which they complained.

Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 2027)