Legal Subject: Creditor

Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
Abraham Delvalle, and Others v. The Creditors of the York-Buildings Company 1783 Debt, Prescription, Creditor, Sequestration, Trustee, Trust After the York Buildings Company failed, its real property in Scotland became the subject of a ranking of creditors. In this ranking, a group of creditors objected to certain claims that had been submitted. In particular, the creditors made two key objections to claims based on bonds issued by the Company. First, the creditors objected that many bonds had been cut off by the Scottish statute of limitations, or “prescription.” In response, the affected bondholders argued that the prescription should not apply because the debts were still valid in England, where they had been contracted and where the York Buildings Company and its creditors resided. Second, the creditors objected that some bonds had been issued under value and should be ranked accordingly. The affected creditors argued that the bonds were negotiable instruments, and purchasers were entitled to rely on their face value. In the course of the proceedings, both sides filed petitions with the Court of Session.
Air v. Johnston 1786 Debt, Bankruptcy, Fraud, Creditor, Disposition, Infeftment William Air, merchant in Coldstream and trustee for the creditors of Robert Johnston, baker and feuar there, petitioned to alter the Lord Ordinary’s interlocutor, citing that a heritable bond held by Thomas Johnston of Templehall was invalid under the Act of 1696. Johnston answered, defending his heritable security against the trustee’s claim that it was liable to be set aside.
Alexander Bruce v. The Representatives of John Stein 1792 Succession, Debt, Creditor, Aliment, Tack, Cautioner Alexander Bruce pursued the representatives of John Stein for a debt arising from a 1770 bond involving Robert Stein, with trustees and spouses' portions also forming part of the dispute. The defenders resisted the action, leading Bruce and his trustee Alexander Abercromby to argue that the defenders, as representatives of the deceased John Stein, remained liable for the bond obligation.
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 Kinloch and Others v. James Rocheid 1799 Debt, Aliment, Succession, Prescription, Teinds, Creditor Elizabeth Rocheid executed a strict entail of her one-half share of Inverleith and Darnchester. She conveyed the rest of her estate to the heirs of entail, conditioned on their paying Elizabeth’s debts and legacies, and using any surplus to purchase and entail the remainder of Inverleith and Darnchester. Alexander Kinloch, the institute, and James Rocheid, his son (represented by tutors), paid Elizabeth's debts and legacies, but they did not purchase the lands specified in Elizabeth’s deed. The next substitutes brought an action against James, seeking an accounting and enforcement of the deed. James responded that because Elizabeth had died more than forty years earlier, the action was barred by the negative prescription. Case documents refer to additional family members and other individuals. They also describe transactions relating to the creation of the South Bridge.
Alexander Pagan and James Hunter v. Alexander Wylie 1792 Debt, Creditor, Bill of Exchange, Suspension, Aliment, Fraud Alexander Pagan and James Hunter, as suspenders, resisted Alexander Wylie’s claim upon a bill of exchange that had been altered from £8 to £84 after execution. Wylie, agent for the Paisley Union Bank, had discounted the bill for the higher amount and argued that the suspenders remained liable for the altered sum, while Pagan and Hunter maintained that such a material change precluded any charge against the original acceptor and indorser. The litigation centered on whether parties to a bill could be held responsible for a sum materially increased after the instrument had been signed.
Alexander Spiers and Others v. Thomas Dunlop and Others 1778 Spendthrift provision, Debt, Aliment, Succession, Creditor, Disposition This case was about a father’s right to impose restrictions on his son’s inheritance under a marriage contract. James Dunlop, elder of Garnkirk, and his wife, Henrietta Maxwell, signed a marriage contract that settled the estate of Garnkirk on the two spouses and any heirs-male of their marriage. Dunlop and Maxwell’s eldest son, James Dunlop the younger, was a Glasgow merchant who contracted substantial debts, with James Sr. as a co-obligant. James Jr. eventually became insolvent and transferred his effects to Alexander Spiers, and others, as trustees for his creditors. The joint debts were purchased by friends of James Sr., including Thomas Dunlop. To secure these debts, James Sr. granted the friends a bond over his estate, and subsequently granted them a trust disposition. On September 17, 1764, James Sr. executed three additional deeds. First, he executed a bond providing a liferent to James Jr.; his wife, Mary Ritchie; and their children, provided that the liferent was an alimentary provision not subject to the son’s debts or to alienation. Second, he executed a provision for his younger children. And third, James Sr. executed a new deed empowering his trustees to sell his estate and apply the proceeds in the following order: (1) to the payment of James Sr.’s debts, (2) to the provision for his younger children, and (3) to the provision for James Jr. The pursuers, James Jr.’s trustees, sought to have these deeds set aside on the ground that the marriage contract barred the elder Dunlop from restricting his son’s inheritance. The defenders, James Sr.’s trustees, responded that a father had the right to provide for his other children and to shield the estate from being taken by creditors.
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.
Arbuthnott v. Gilmour 1765 Debt, Adjudication, Succession, Reduction, Creditor, Trust John Arbuthnott petitioned the Court to overturn an interlocutor ordering him to convey a debt and diligence to the representatives of the late James Justice. Elizabeth Gilmour, Justice’s widow, answered, arguing that the assignation to Arbuthnott had been granted as collateral security rather than in trust.
Archer v. Lord Eskgrove's Interlocutor 1793 Cautioner, Creditor, Reduction, Interlocutor, Succession, Bankruptcy
Arrot v. Coulter 1792 Debt, Bankruptcy, Bill of Exchange, Sequestration, Assignation, Creditor Petition by William Coulter, trustee on the Sequestrated Estate of James Elder, objecting to an assignment by Mr. Elder to Messrs Mansfield, Ramsay, and Co., which attempted to convey certain goods sent by Mr. Elder to Mr. Thomas Brunton, Merchant in Kingston for consignment. Mr. Coulter objects on three grounds: 1. That Mr. Elder made the assignment solely to preference certain creditors, including his brother-in-law Mr. Quinn and his friend, Mr. Arrot, surgeon in Edinburgh; 2. that the conveyance was not completed as Mr. Elder never delivered the assignment to Messrs Mansfield, Ramsay, and Co.; and 3. No intimation (legal notice) of the assignation was delivered that was sufficient to divest the cedent and complete the right of the assignee in a competition with other creditors.

Summary of Facts:
In 1787, Mr. Elder obtained a Cash credit of 200 £ Sterling from Sir William Forbes, James Hunter, and Co., cautioned by Mr. Quinn/Quynne/Gwyn (his brother-in-law) and Mr. Arrot. All the money was spent.
On May 22, 1789, Mr. Elder drew upon Mr. Arrot a bill for 130 £ Sterling, which was accepted by Mr. Arrot. On May 23, Mr. Elder discounted the bill with Messrs Mansfield, Ramsay, and Co., Bankers in Edinburgh. The bill was endorsed by Mr. Andrew, writer in Edinburgh. Mr. Elder used this money to close out his cash account with Sir William Forbes and Co, the account closed on June 27, 1789. During this time, Mr. Elder wrote an assignment, dated May 22, 1789, conveying the proceeds of a parcel of goods currently held by Mr. Brunton for consignment to Messrs Mansfield, Ramsay, and Co. to satisfy the debt owed for the advancement of the bill. This assignment was never delivered, but remained with Mr. Elder.
On August 5, 1789, Mr. Elder called a meeting of his creditors. On October 7, 1789, the Sequestration was applied for and granted.
After the sequestration, on November 12, 1789, Mr. Coulter, trustee of the estate, received a letter from Messrs William Sibbald and Co., merchants in Leith, who possessed sugar and rum owned by Mr. Elder, remitted from Mr. Brunton. Mr. Arrot and Mr. Andrew, as writer and endorser respectively of Mr. Elder's debt to Messrs Mansfield, Ramsay and Co., made a claim of preference for the goods, suggesting that the assignment written by Mr. Elder conveyed these goods to Messrs Mansfield and Ramsay. The trustee, Mr. Coulter, denied these claims.
On November 29, 1791, Mr. Coulter filed a petition to the Lords of Council and Session, made by Mr. Coulter, Trustee. Lord Ordinary Henderland heard the petition on December 7, 1791, and rendered judgment for Mr. Arrot.
This appeal follows.
Attorney of Thomas Cullen & Co v. David Philp 1792 Debt, Creditor, Bill of Exchange, Contract, Employment, Pactum Illicitum The attorney of Thomas Cullen and Company opposed David Philp, merchant in Boarhills, who as suspender pleaded that no action could lie upon bills alleged to have arisen from a smuggling transaction in which the pursuers were principals or accessories. The attorney replied that this plea of non-action for smuggled goods was unjust and unsupported by law or fact.
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.
Bannerman v. Shaw and Ritchie 1795 Debt, Aliment, Succession, Creditor, Interest, Interlocutor The Reverend Mr. James Bannerman, as executor of Mrs Beatrix Goldie, petitioned the Court to overturn an interlocutor ordering him to condescend on a bond granted by his late husband. David Shaw of Jamaica and his attorney Alexander Ritchie answered, responding to claims under a bond dated 1771. Bannerman then petitioned to alter the interlocutor and be assoilzied, whereupon Shaw and Ritchie answered again, this time responding to the claim for a bond due from Bannerman’s late uncle Patrick Bannerman.
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.
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.
Black v. Allason 1788 Bankruptcy, Debt, Creditor, Disposition, Reduction, Sasine William Black, carrier and portioner in Falkirk and pursuer, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor against defender Allason. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Blands v. Ewing and Company, and Dinwiddie 1777 Debtor and Creditor, England, Debt, Bill of Exchange, Statute, Creditor This case was about the liability of individuals who endorsed a dishonored promissory note. Walter Ewing and Company purchased the note from Robert Dinwiddie, a bank cashier, and remitted it to Bland and Company in England. After the note’s maker, William Mowat, failed to pay, Bland and Company sued Robert Dinwiddie and Ewing and Company, both of whom had earlier endorsed the note. The defenders claimed that they could not be held liable because Bland and Company did not properly notify them that the note had been dishonoured. The cause came before Lord Monboddo, who assoilzied (absolved) the defenders. Bland and Company then submitted a petition to the Court asking them to overturn this decision. The Court adhered to Monboddo's interlocutor.
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.
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.
Buchannans v. Gray and Hall 1782 Sequestration, Debt, Cautioner, Succession, Creditor, Disposition Alexander and Jean Buchanan initiated a ranking and sale of land that had belonged to Robert Hall of Fulbar. The land was possessed by John Farquhar-Gray of Kilmardinny and Jean Hall, each of whom claimed to have a heritable security on the property. The Buchanans objected to these securities and raised a second process against Farquhar-Gray and Hall to challenge their claims. While the proceedings were pending, the Buchanans petitioned the court to sequestrate the land in question. Farquhar-Gray and Hall argued that it would be improper to sequestrate land that was already in their possession, and that the parties’ rights should be determined in the other proceedings.
Burden alias Campbell v. Campbells and Robertson 1791 Succession, Aliment, Creditor, Legacy, Multiple-Poinding, Disposition Mrs Elizabeth Burden, alias Campbell, pursued the Campbells and Robertson as heir of her predeceased son John Campbell, claiming entitlement to his share of the residue of Duncan Campbell’s estate under the will’s substitution clause. She subsequently advanced additional claims under both the will and intestacy law, citing precedent for representative succession. The dispute centered on whether a mother could represent her deceased son to recover his portion of the inheritance under these competing theories of succession.
Burt v. Lord Justice Clerk's Interlocutor 1789 Succession, Aliment, Debt, Creditor, Sequestration, Defamation Robert Burt petitioned the Court of Session to alter an interlocutor that the Court had pronounced against the Lord Justice Clerk. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Campbell and Others, posterior Adjudgers v. The Common Agent for the Postponed Creditors in the Ranking of the Creditors of Charles Maclean of Kinlochaline 1801 Adjudication, Bankruptcy, Creditor, Debt, Statute, Decree of adjudication The creditors of Lieutenant-Colonel Charles Maclean, of Kinlochaline, proceeded to attach his estate. One adjudication was initiated by George Andrew; a subsequent adjudication was initiated by Henry Butter of Pitlochry. Additional creditors were conjoined in both Mr. Andrew’s proceeding and Mr. Butter’s. However, the common agent objected that the bankrupt act only authorized creditors to be conjoined in the first adjudication. After some creditors argued that Mr. Andrew’s adjudication not actually the first, an additional objection was raised to the conjoined creditors in that proceeding.
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. Irvine 1794 Aliment, Marriage, Creditor, Succession, Debt, Interlocutor
Campbell v. Laidlaw 1796 Debt, Creditor, Bill of Exchange, Sequestration, Partnership, Interlocutor Robert Campbell, as pursuer, petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor suspending his charge for a bill of exchange he had accepted without value in the action against Laidlaw, the defender. Robert Corbet thereafter informed the Court that the bill had been accepted for the accommodation of Archibald M'Ausland rather than Milligan and Co.
Campbell v. Macdougal 1783 Debt, Liferent, Aliment, Warrandice, Reduction, Creditor The Campbells petitioned to alter the Lord Ordinary’s interlocutor in their action against Macdougal regarding a £200 bond owed to Isobel Campbell. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Cassillis v. Stephenson 1776 Ranking of Creditors, Debt, Interlocutor, Ranking and Sale, Creditor, Agent The parties in this case were creditors of the late William Donald, a merchant in Ayr. Through an agent, Andrew Stephenson, respondent, brought a process to rank the creditors, and representatives of the creditors met to select a common agent. Petitioner David, Earl of Cassilis, claimed that at the meeting a majority of creditors voted for Alexander Abercrombie to be the common agent. However, respondent Stephenson and others preferred George Tod. Following the meeting, Lord Gardenstone, Ordinary, nominated and authorized George Tod as common agent. Cassilis et al. sought review from the Lords of Session, arguing that Abercrombie was selected as common agent by a majority of creditors and by a majority of the value of the debts represented. The petitioners also argued that, as “preferable” creditors, they had priority over the respondents, who were “postponed” creditors. Stephenson et al. disputed specific votes at the creditor meeting, arguing that certain agents for the petitioners were not authorized to vote for Alexander Abercrombie. Some creditors, they argued, did not meet the threshold amount of debt to gain a vote. For all the other creditors who met the threshold amount of debt, the respondents rejected any distinction between preferable and postponed creditors for the ranking of creditors.
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.
Chalmers, Leslie, & Seton v. Creditors of George Chalmers 1778 Debt, Adjudication, Ranking of Creditors, Sequestration, Trustee, Creditor The partnership of Chalmers, Leslie, and Seton sought to be ranked on the estate of George Chalmers of Pittencrieff. Several of Chalmers’s creditors objected on the ground that the firm’s creditors were already ranked.
Charles Stewart, Writer to the Signet v. Andrew Miller, Depute Clerk to the Bills 1799 Aliment, Debt, Creditor, Succession, Bill of Exchange, Contract Defender Andrew Miller purchased the office of Deputy Clerk to the Bills from the Principal Clerks, Sir Robert Anstruther and Thomas Smith. While arranging the purchase, he met with Anstruther’s agent, pursuer Charles Stewart, W.S., who proposed to advance Miller one half of the purchase price in return for two-fifths of the deputy clerk’s fees collected during Miller’s tenure. Unbeknownst to Miller, Stewart was transacting on behalf of an undisclosed principal later revealed to be the son of Sir Robert Anstruther.

After Miller assumed his new office, the fee revenues dropped significantly and he was forced to borrow £250 from Charles Stewart. Subsequently, the court passed an act of sederunt allowing Miller to exact certain additional fees and apply them “to his use alone.” However, Miller failed to repay Stewart, who brought an action to recover the debt. In response, Miller presented a bill of suspension intended to try whether Mr. Stewart (or his principal) was entitled to 2/5 of the old fees, and whether he could claim any share of the new fees. The case documents contain information on fee revenues, activity levels in the Court of Session, and previous financial arrangements involving deputy clerks.
Cheape and Lindsay v. Campbell and Creditors 1795 Debt, Adjudication, Creditor, Sale, Succession, Estate Donald Campbell petitioned to challenge Lord Dregborn's interlocutor permitting creditors James Lindsay and James Cheape to pursue separate adjudications against an estate Campbell was selling as apparent heir, arguing such actions were unnecessary and costly. 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
Clark v. Stuart 1779 Bonds, Sist, Maryland, Debt, Cautioner, Creditor In August 1770, Hugh Macbride, Charles Philipshill, and the petitioner Peter Clark granted a bond for £150 sterling to Elisabeth Macbride. Charles Philipshill was the receiver of the money while the petitioner cosigned the loan at the request of Marion Philipshill and James Stewart. Both Marion Philipshill and James Stewart signed a promissory document, certifying they would indemnify Clark £75 each should repayment be requested. In June 1777, the heirs of Elisabeth Macbride called in the loan and Peter Clark paid her the money. The other two signers of the loan having relocated to Maryland. Marion Philipshilll reimbursed Clark her half of the loan but James Stewart did not. The Magistrates of Glasgow ruled that Stewart should pay Clark, but Stewart brought action to the Court of Session. In a previous judgment Lord Stonefield pronounced that the case be put on hold until the principal debtor, Charles Philipshill, be sued for repayment. Peter Clark then petitioned the court to have this decision overturned. On March 3, 1779 the Court remitted the cause to the Magistrates of Glasgow. Stewart then petitioned the Court to alter this interlocutor. Handwritten marginalia on this document indicates that the Court refused Stewart's petition.
College of Glasgow v. Lindsay 1793 Succession, Disposition, Infeftment, Contract of marriage, Creditor, Aliment
Colquhoun v. Murdoch 1788 Debt, Aliment, Creditor, Insanity, Succession, Proof Humphry Colquhoun, formerly of Port-Glasgow and then residing in Edinburgh, pursued George Murdoch, late Comptroller of the Customs at Port-Glasgow, leading proof by his witnesses in November 1788. Murdoch subsequently petitioned the Court in August 1789, seeking alteration of an interlocutor that had allowed the evidence of James Carmichael and Mary Campbell to be received.
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 v. Boyd 1765 Debt, Shipping, Interlocutor, Oath, Creditor, Adjudication Hugh Crawfurd, James and William Aitkens, Hector Fairie, John Fisher, John Crawfurd, and Hugh Craig petitioned the Court to remit an interlocutor finding them liable for goods shipped at the Isle of Man on their account. John Boyd and others, as executors-creditors of Patrick Ewing, answered, contending that the obligation letters were not probative of delivery or receipt. The litigation thus turned on the evidentiary sufficiency of the obligation letters to support the finding of liability.
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 Angus Fisher v. The Creditors of Patrick Campbell, and Others 1778 Bonds, Debt, Cautioner, Assignation, Creditor, Bankruptcy Angus Fisher, merchant of Inveraray, borrowed some £600 sterling from the Old Ayr Bank. Captain James Campbell, Patrick Campbell of Knap, Gillies of Duchra, and Ochiltree of Lindsaig served as joint-cautioners. At the same time Angus Fisher had other outstanding debts, including one held by Mrs. Sarah Ranken. Both Captain Campbell and Mrs. Ranken were granted heritable bonds of relief over the lands of Auchindrain for payment and security. In December 1771, the Old Ayr Bank demanded repayment. Angus Fisher had died insolvent, as had Gillies of Duchra. Campbell of Knap, Ochiltree, and their creditors, gave Captain Campbell £230 each, and he then reimbursed the bank in full. All the joint-cautioners had arranged that the heritable bond held by Captain Campbell would be used to reimburse all cautioners and their creditors. Mrs. Sarah Ranken and other creditors of Angus Fisher objected to this arrangement, claiming that the income from the property should instead be used to pay other creditors who held heritable bonds against Auchindrain. In 1778 Lord Hailes pronounced that Captain Campbell's co-cautioners were indeed entitled to a residuary security from the property. Ranken and other creditors of Fisher then petitioned the Court, arguing that the heritable bond was held personally by Captain Campbell and could not be used to reimburse the other co-cautioners. The Court repelled her objection.
Creditors of Currie v. Geddes 1793 Debt, Creditor, Prescription, Bill of Exchange, Trustee, Trustees The creditors of Currie, represented by their common agent in the sale and ranking of the Estate of Newlaw, petitioned the Court to alter Lord Swinton’s interlocutor. The respondents contested the creditors’ attempt to rank debts against Currie’s estate, citing partial payments and post-prescription markings as evidence of debt continuity.
Creditors of David Currie v. William Hannay 1791 Debt, Penalty, Damages, Creditor, Contract, Forfeiture The creditors of David Currie pursued William Hannay regarding whether articles of roup imposed a binding obligation. Hannay petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor, and John Currie, as eldest son and apparent heir of David Currie, and Hugh Corrie, Writer to the Signet, answered, maintaining that the articles created no binding obligation.
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 Fergusson v. Swinton 1795 Creditor, Debt, Succession, Aliment, Feu duties, Property Hugh Ferguson, David Steuart, and other creditors of Walter Ferguson pursued an action against Mrs Catharine Swinton, his spouse, to set aside her marital settlements as fraudulent preferences prejudicial to their claims against the insolvent estate. They challenged the postnuptial contract granting her an annuity and provisions as voidable for preference. Mrs Swinton, represented by Alexander Keith as her curator ad litem, defended the deed as fair, onerous, and legally valid, resisting reduction.
Creditors of Hay v. Fleming 1793 Debt, Creditor, Adjudication, Bill of Exchange, Interlocutor, Bankruptcy James Fleming, defender in the action by the creditors of Hay, petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor that had excluded him from an adjudication upon the debtor’s Scottish property, maintaining that his claim was liquidated by bill and sufficiently authenticated by protest and affidavit notwithstanding the original instrument’s absence abroad. He sought to overturn the Inner-House ruling and obtain remit to the Lord Ordinary to lead further proof of his debt’s verity.
Creditors of Hynd v. M'Kechny 1777 Expenses, Adjudication, Rent, Interlocutor, Oath, Creditor In 1764, Alexander M'Kechny became a tenant of a dwelling-house and offices in Port-Glasgow, which had been the property of James Hynd. Hynd, a land-waiter, died in debt. In 1770 Hynd's son renounced his claim to his father's estate and Hynd's effects were then sold to pay his creditors. In June 1775, a remit was made to Lord Stonefield to divide the funds from the sale, and at this time Stonefield discovered that no rents had been paid on the property occupied by Alexander M'Kechny. The creditors of John Hynd brought action against M'Kechny, and various facts of the tenancy were disputed: The year M'Kechny took up residence in the dwelling-house, the yearly rent, and the sums expended by M'Kechny on repairs and legal defenses against encroachment. While M'Kechny was eventually vindicated in court, he argued that the verity of his claim had been known to his creditors from the beginning, and that they were therefore responsible for his legal expenses. The pursuers, on the other hand, argued that M'Kechny was at fault for providing incomplete records and making himself unavailable to be deponed.
Creditors of Jackson and Esten v. Kemble (Two Folders) 1793 Patent, Creditor, Sequestration, Interdict, Trust, Lease The creditors of Jackson and Esten petitioned for possession of the Edinburgh Theatre in order to manage the property under a disputed patent held by Mrs Esten. Kemble, defending as lessee and trustee of the Theatre Royal, resisted the grant of an interdict against his possession, asserting his lawful title and the public interest and arguing that the Court ought first to investigate the validity of Mrs Esten's patent claim before removing him from the theatre.
Creditors of John Horn 1791 Sequestration, Creditor, Trustee, Adjudication, Interlocutor, Statute George Wilson, trustee for the creditors of John Horn, petitioned to alter an interlocutor allowing individual creditors to adjudicate post-sequestration, citing statutory prohibition and the risk of confusion or penalty preference. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.

Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 3601)