David Thomson of Ingliston, defender, granted a bond to James Thomson, who conveyed shares of the bond to many different assignees. Several of these assignees made further assignments, and the pursuers, John Richardson and John Tait, came to possess a four-sixths share of the bond. Richardson and Tait sued David Thomson for payment. In the ensuing process, Thomson alleged that Tait and Richardson were merely trustees for certain assignees whom he had already paid. In response, Richardson and Tait claimed to be Thomson’s rightful creditors, having exchanged ready money for shares that the earlier assignees were unable to collect. Richardson and Tait also argued that David Thomson had missed a deadline for continuing to contest the case.
People involved
- John Richardson — Pursuer
- John Tait — Pursuer
- David Thomson, of Ingliston — Defender
- William Craig, Lord Craig — Advocate for Pursuer
- Robert Blair, of Avontoun, Lord Avontoun — Advocate for Defender
- John Campbell, Lord Stonefield — Lord Ordinary
- James Thomson — Named in case documents
- Janet Richardson — Named in case documents
- Janet Thomson — Named in case documents
- Samuel Kennan — Named in case documents
- Margaret Thomson — Named in case documents
- George Tait — Named in case documents
- Mary Thomson — Named in case documents
- John Gourlay — Named in case documents
- Nicholas Thomson — Named in case documents
- Samuel Thomson — Named in case documents
- Sarah Thomson — Named in case documents
- John Thomson — Named in case documents
- Janet Thomson — Named in case documents
- John Muir — Named in case documents
- Janet Hunter — Named in case documents
- James Maccutcheon — Named in case documents
- John Macnight — Named in case documents
- Alexander Gordon, of Crogo — Named in case documents
- Alexander Stevenson — Named in case documents
- Thomas Blackhall — Named in case documents
Places
David Thomson of Ingliston, defender, granted a bond to James Thomson, who conveyed shares of the bond to many different assignees. Several of these assignees made further assignments, and the pursuers, John Richardson and John Tait, came to possess a four-sixths share of the bond. Richardson and Tait sued David Thomson for payment. In the ensuing process, Thomson alleged that Tait and Richardson were merely trustees for certain assignees whom he had already paid. In response, Richardson and Tait claimed to be Thomson’s rightful creditors, having exchanged ready money for shares that the earlier assignees were unable to collect. Richardson and Tait also argued that David Thomson had missed a deadline for continuing to contest the case.