This case was about liability for a share of the failed partnership of Douglas, Heron, and Company. The pursuers, a group of the company’s partners, alleged that the disputed share belonged to Archibald Cockburn of Cockpen, who was both a stockholder and a director of the company. Cockburn claimed that he had acquired the share on behalf of the company, as part of an effort to prop up its stock price. However, the partners argued that as a director, Cockburn did not have the power to make such a purchase, and that even if he did, that power was not exercised properly.
Documents in this case (2)
- Douglas — Petition, 3 Mar 1780March 3, 1780 Petition of the pursuers asking the Court to alter the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor, which assoilzied the defender and decerned against them
- certain Partners of Douglas, Heron, and Company v. Archibald Cockburn — Answers, 22 Apr 1780April 22, 1780 Information of the respondent, arguing that the Directors' purchase of shares for the Company's behoof was valid under the 1770 regulation and did not require General Meeting sanction.
People & places in this case
People involved
- Archibald Cockburn, Esq., of Cockpen — Defender
- John Scott — Advocate for Pursuer
- Robert Blair, of Avontoun, Lord Avontoun — Advocate for Defender
- Sir David Dalrymple, Lord Hailes, 3rd Baronet of Nova Scotia — Lord Ordinary
- Douglas, Heron, and Company — Named in case documents
- James Dalziel — Named in case documents
- George Home, W.S., of Wedderburn and Paxton — Named in case documents
- Henry Scott, 3rd Duke of Buccleuch and 5th Duke of Queensberry — Named in case documents
Where this case took place
This case was about liability for a share of the failed partnership of Douglas, Heron, and Company. The pursuers, a group of the company’s partners, alleged that the disputed share belonged to Archibald Cockburn of Cockpen, who was both a stockholder and a director of the company. Cockburn claimed that he had acquired the share on behalf of the company, as part of an effort to prop up its stock price. However, the partners argued that as a director, Cockburn did not have the power to make such a purchase, and that even if he did, that power was not exercised properly.
