AI-transcribed

An agent. The steward of an estate. A manager appointed by trustees. JUDICIAL FACTOR, a receiver appointed by the Court of Session.

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: Factor

Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
Baines v. Turnbull 1794 Debt, Bill of Exchange, Creditor, Bankruptcy, Interest, Factor Baines, the suspender, argued against Turnbull that he was not liable for bills dishonoured through no fault of his own. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Beck v. M'Clone 1785 Factor, Agent, Debt, Damages, Bargain, Aliment This case was about a contract dispute. The defenders, Samuel Macclone Jr. and Samuel Macclone Sr., lived on the farm of Ross. The pursuer, John Beck, alleged that Samuel Jr. had agreed to sell him the farm’s entire output of oats. The Macclones responded that Samuel Jr. had no authority to make the bargain on behalf of his father, who was the sole tenant, and that Beck had known this when he allegedly entered into the transaction.
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.
College of Glasgow v. Selkirk, Miller, and Stirling 1793 Feu duties, Debt, Tack, Teinds, Factor, Intromission The College of Glasgow petitioned against Selkirk, Miller, and Stirling, challenging a June 1792 interlocutor that limited overpayment offsets to cautionary branches and arguing for proportional application across all revenue branches. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Creditors of Robert Deans v. Dr. James Pringle 1764 Debt, Creditor, Aliment, Factor, Succession, Intromission The creditors of Robert Deans petitioned the court to review an interlocutor affecting the interest of Dr. James Pringle, physician in Richmond, who answered their objections. Andrew Chalmer, writer in Edinburgh, acting in right of the deceased Alexander Deans and his creditors, then petitioned to remit an accusation by Pringle that Chalmer had charged sums intromitted by Thomas Mackenzie to Mrs Campbell and again to the respondent. Pringle defended his statements in duplies and a reply, maintaining their accuracy and urging private clarification over public complaint.
Donald v. Murdoch 1771 Debt, Aliment, Creditor, Succession, Arrestment, Factor Charger Susan Murdoch sought to collect on a bond from suspenders Robert Donald, James Hepburn, and Walter Stirling. Stirling was also a nephew and factor to Murdoch. The suspenders refused to pay on the bond, alleging that Murdoch suffered from mental infirmity and old age ("weak both in body and in mind"). Murdoch denied this charge and maintained that the suspenders fabricated this allegation to delay or avoid payment on the bond. The suspenders denied that they were trying to take advantage of Murdoch. They maintained they were still obligated to pay on the bond at five percent interest. They also argued that Murdoch is not capable of taking care of her own affairs, and that other individuals in Murdoch's life were trying to get their hands on the money from the bond.
Forbes and Others v. Forrester & co 1794 Bankruptcy, Debt, Trustee, Creditor, Sequestration, Factor Sir William Forbes and others, as pursuers, sought to establish Alexander Nairne as the proper trustee for the sequestrated estate of Peter Forrester and Company, while the creditors of that estate contended that Robert Forrester should be confirmed as trustee under the statute governing sequestrated estates. The parties presented competing memorials advancing their respective candidates for the office.
James Stewart v. Alexander Scot 1830 Cautioner, Factor, Creditor, Intromission, Aliment, Mandate James Stewart, as pursuer, submitted a revised case against Alexander Scot, the defender. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Jamieson, et al v. Andrew, et al 1786 Bankruptcy, Debt, Sequestration, Creditor, Aliment, Factor John Jamieson and other creditors of Gavin Kempt petitioned the Court to overturn the election of James Campbell as interim factor, alleging that James Kempt’s creditor claim—which supported his vote in that election—was fraudulent and self-serving. George Andrew, as factor for Henry Greig, James Kempt, and other creditors of Gavin Kempt, answered the petition, defending the validity of Kempt’s vote.
M'Farlane v. Buchanan 1778 Hereditas Jacens, Factor, Charter of Confirmation, Adjudication, Succession, Exhibition Ad Deliberandum Dougal Macfarlane, merchant in Dumfries, died in debt in 1730 shortly after purchasing Auchendennan Dennistoun. George Buchanan, Glasgow merchant, became factor for the estate in 1746, and in 1761 he secretly obtained a charter of confirmation and adjudication from the superior of Auchendennan. Sixteen years later, John Macfarlane, the nephew of Dougal, brought action against Buchanan before the Sheriff of Dunbarton, asking for exhibition of all bonds or other writs wherein his uncle had been bound to Buchanan. Buchanan countered that because forty-seven years had passed since Dougal Macfarlane had died, his nephew's right of insisting in a court-enforced delivery of documents was lost by barred claims. The Sheriff rejected Buchanan's defenses, and after Buchanan applied to the Court of Session, Lord Barskimming accepted the cause through a Bill of Advocation. In his argument to the Court, Macfarlane argued that because Buchanan had originally possessed the lands in question as a factor, he could not invert his possession without communicating this fact to their heir. In obtaining the charter of confirmation in secret, therefore, Buchanan had carried off Macfarlane's unclaimed estate. Buchanan, on the other hand, argued that Macfarlane must produce relevant grounds to challenge his right as heritor before gaining access to his charter-chest. Barskimming ordained Buchanan to produce the adjudication and factory in his possession, and the Court adhered to this interlocutor. Nevertheless, Buchanan's charter was never revoked; in 1784, he entailed his estate of Arden, formed from the lands of Auchendennan Dennistoun and Bannachra.
MacGill v. Campbell 1780 Factor Loco Tutoris, Aliment, Estate, Succession, Factor, Security This case was about the appointment of a guardian for John Brand, who was unable to manage his own affairs. William Ayton was appointed tutor by the Court of Exchequer, but he died before Brand’s incapacity was lifted. The beneficiary of Brand’s will, Sarah Macgill, requested the appointment of a factor loco tutoris (administrator) to manage Brand’s affairs on an interim basis. William Campbell and John Brand, W.S., relatives of the incapacitated Brand, opposed Macgill’s petition, arguing that Campbell had already petitioned the Court of Exchequer to become tutor-dative.
Mackenzie v. Mackenzie 1797 Debt, Aliment, Succession, Executor, Factor, Reduction Sir Hector Mackenzie of Gairloch, Baronet, pursued Alexander Kenneth Mackenzie regarding a conveyance of provision, which Alexander Kenneth defended as void for lack of requisite curator consent. Both parties successively petitioned the Court to alter interlocutors entered against them, with Sir Hector insisting that payment by his factor Norman Mackenzie was valid and not reducible. The dispute thus turned on whether the conveyance was effective without curator approval and whether the factor’s payment could stand.
Maclauchlan and Campbell v. Campbell and Macnicol 1794 Aliment, Debt, Succession, Prescription, Intromission, Factor Grace Campbell, co-heiress and creditor under her father's marriage-contract, and Maclauchlan pursued the representatives of the late Colin Campbell of Ballinaby for count and reckoning. The defenders petitioned to be assoilzied from the action, and Maclauchlan sought alteration of a recent interlocutor. The pursuers subsequently argued that a tutor who failed to make inventories was not entitled to plead decennial prescription.
Marion Kilpatrick v. John Macalpine 1792 Intromission, Trustee, Debt, Executor, Factor, Succession
Maxwell v. Maxwell 1766 Debt, Adjudication, Bill of Exchange, Prescription, Factor, Creditor In February 1734, James Maxwell of Kirkconnell accepted a bill to Maxwell of Craswadda for £38 Sterling, payable 1st May thereafter. This was allowed to lie over, without being protested or registrated, or any diligence on it, till summer 1765; when an action for payment was brought, at instance of Craswadda's executor, against James Maxwell then of Kirkconnell, as representing his father James Maxwell, the acceptor of the foresaid bill. Lord Ordinary decerned for payment; the defenders reclaimed to the Lords. (Morison, Decisions).
Miss Margaret Littlejohn, and Others v. James Hamilton 1832 Sequestration, Creditor, Trustee, Debt, Factor, Trust Miss Margaret Littlejohn and others pursued James Hamilton of Kames for sequestration of the rents of his estate and the appointment of a judicial factor. Hamilton answered, arguing that sequestration was unnecessary and incompetent in view of an existing trust arrangement. Heritable creditors subsequently petitioned for authority to let lands in Hamilton's personal possession or for sequestration of the whole estate, and Hamilton filed further answers responding to the application.
Naismith v. M'Morrow 1783 Sequestration, Factor, Debt, Aliment, Arrestment, Multiple-Poinding This case was about competing claims to rents on the estate of William Maxwell of Ardwell. In 1780, Maxwell’s tenants initiated a proceeding to prioritize various claims made by Maxwell’s creditors. As part of that proceeding, the Lord Ordinary sequestrated the disputed rents and appointed Thomas Naismith as factor. However, in 1781, two of Maxwell’s tenants initiated a second proceeding regarding their rents. In the second proceeding, Elizabeth M’Morrow obtained a preference based on an arrestment she had served on the tenants. Naismith challenged M’Morrow’s preference. However, M’Morrow responded that the earlier sequestration was improperly obtained and that, in any case, her arrestment predated the sequestration.
Newton v. Anderson 1733 Adjudication, Cautioner, Sequestration, Interlocutor, Factor, Ranking and Sale Abraham Newton and John Newton petitioned the Court to recall a Decreet of Ranking and remit the Complaint against Anderson to be heard. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Ray v. Baillie 1768 Liferent, Aliment, Factor, Creditor, Debt, Succession Mrs. Janet Ray petitioned for the appointment of Captain Lewis Ray as a factor to administer an estate after the trustees declined to assume their duties due to liability concerns, while the respondents opposed that nomination. Alexander Inglis replied, stating he lacked court authority to make payments and detailing the estate's management, including the sale of farm stock and the limited claim to moveable assets.
Representatives of Bryce Blair v. Walter Graham, and Others 1766 Factor, Stipend, Feu duties, Tack, Rent, Teind Bryce Blair served as factor of the sequestered estates of Crieve and Mossknowe from 1742 until his death in 1762. During that time, he failed to make regular court filings detailing the estate’s accounts. After Blair’s death, the estates were sold in a judicial sale, which raised enough proceeds to provide the heirs of Crieve with a reversion after the relevant debts were paid. This led to a dispute over the amount of the reversion. In particular, the heirs of Crieve disputed certain charges for a minister’s stipend, on the ground that the payments ought to have been made by tenants on the estate. The heirs also contested charges for feu duties to the Marquis of Annandale, contending that there was no proof of payment.
Rose v. Lord Cullen's Interlocutor 1801 Debt, Bargain, Aliment, Tack, Contract, Factor The Right Hon. James Earl of Fife answered the petition of William Rose, late his factor, responding to allegations of breach of trust and confidential disclosure. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Sir Alexander Mackenzie of Gairloch v. Hector Mackenzie and His Tutor 1768 Debt, Factor, Assignation, Executor, Reduction, Disposition
Sommerville v. Weir 1781 Bill (Financial Instrument), Prescription, Debt, Bill of Exchange, Interlocutor, Factor Charger James Sommerville sued William Weir for payment of a bill accepted by William's late father, George Weir. William challenged the suit based on the sexennial prescription (i.e., the statute of limitations). Sommerville argued that the prescription did not apply because it had been interrupted by partial payments or, alternatively, by the acknowledgements of William's agents.
Tait v. Lord Stonefield's Interlocutor 1796 Debt, Aliment, Succession, Tack, Factor, Action John Tait, as factor for Spens’s executors, pursued the Gillons for payment of a debt arising from a 1780 holograph account, claiming £82 8s 9d and rejecting the defenders’ assertion of £106 17s 3d. Walter Spens subsequently petitioned the Court to alter Lord Stonefield’s interlocutor, which had found him subsidiarily liable for the debt should the executors’ estate prove exhausted.
Taylor v. McCleod 1787 Aliment, Succession, Annual Rent, Factor, Factor Loco Tutoris, Creditor Sarah Taylor, maternal grandmother of Anne and John Hodgson, children of the deceased Joseph Hodgson and Margaret Ross, petitions the court for removal of Alexander Macleod as factor in loco tutoris of Anne and John Hodgson and for relief on account of Alexander Macleod's willful mishandling of the estate in violation of the February 13, 1730 special act of sederunt which lays out the requirements for a factor loco tutoris.
Thomson v. Scott 1780 Rent, Arrestment, Hypothec, Sequestration, Interlocutor, Factor Documents available. For description in progress.
William Baxter v. Bell and Maxwell and Others 1800 Debt, Compensation, Factor, Creditor, Credit, Arrestment The defenders in this case, a group of soap and candle makers, purchased wicks from James Hutchison Jr. In turn, they sometimes sold their goods to Hutchison. Rather than paying separately for each transaction, the merchants periodically settled their accounts and paid the balance in cash or by bill. Unbeknownst to the defenders, Hutchison was selling the wicks on commission from pursuer William Baxter. When Hutchison died, Baxter sued the defenders for the price of certain wicks that they had received. However, the defenders argued that Hutchison owed them a larger sum, and that Baxter must bear the risk of misconduct by Hutchison, his consignee.
William Cuningham and Company v. Gilbert Lang 1775 Factor, Intromission, Debt, Bankruptcy, Arrestment, Diligence Defender Gilbert Lang formed a partnership with John Wright Jr. for the purpose of manufacturing and selling snuff tobacco. The firm failed, and to accomplish payment of its debts, Lang assigned the partnership’s assets to Cuningham and Company, its principal creditor; Cuningham, in return, granted Lang a factory to dispose of the goods and collect any debts due to the partnership. A dispute arose over Lang’s management of the assets, and Cuningham and Company filed suit.
Woods v. Carstairs 1777 Bargain, Loan, Ranking of Creditors, Sale, Sequestration, Factor This case concerns a promised wheat shipment from Robert Fleming, tenant in Falside, to James and William Woods, merchants in Elie. In January 1777, Fleming wrote the Woods brothers about his circumstances. He offered to send them "all the wheat that I have" in exchange for an advance of money. The Woods brothers sent Fleming about £9 in cash and approximately £30 in bills. Fleming then sent the Woods sixteen bolls of wheat, promising to deliver the remainder after seed-time. However, before this could happen, Fleming's affairs went into disorder, and he applied for a sequestration of his effects. The Woods then applied to James Carstairs, Fleming's factor, for the remainder of the wheat. Carstairs replied that the money Fleming had received from the two men was not a bargain, but a loan, and informed them that they would have to wait for the ranking of Fleming's creditors. The Woods then petitioned the Court to order Carstairs to deliver the wheat to them. As opposed to Carstair's claim that the transaction in question was a loan, the pursuers argued that it was a bargain.

Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 342)