Legal Subject: Promissory note |
| Case | Date | Legal Subject | Abstract |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coalston v. Stewart | 1770 | Debt, Bankruptcy, Sequestration, Jurisdiction, Interlocutor, Promissory note | Pursuer Jean Coalston and her husband Patrick Walker petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Gourlay v. Glen | 1786 | Debt, Arrestment, Creditor, Interlocutor, Promissory note, Sequestration | David Gourlay of Kipdarroch, Deputy-Collector of Supply for the County of Stirling, pursued William Glen regarding competing claims to funds held by John Campbell. The dispute concerned priority between Gourlay’s revenue claim and Glen’s claim to a debt due from John Price. Gourlay initially petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor sustaining Campbell’s defence against Glen; Glen subsequently petitioned to reverse Lord Swinton’s interlocutor decerning against him, and Gourlay answered, maintaining his priority over the consigned funds. |
| Jean Coalston, Pursuer v. Archibald Stewart, Merchant in Queensferry, Defender | 1770 | Bankruptcy, Debt, Aliment, Statute of limitations, Interlocutor, Promissory note | The late George Stewart, merchant, who had filed for bankruptcy in London in 1749, owed money to Peter Coalston, the petitioner's brother, who had not participated in the bankruptcy arrangement. Later, Stewart started making money again and died, quite solvent, in 1758, with his bother Archibald as heir. Jean Coalston, as her brother's heir, sought to collect the debt. At the issue was the extraterritoriality of English law, in particular whether the laws of bankruptcy in England were applicable and valid in Scotland, as bankruptcy proceedings in Scotland were voluntary for creditors, whereas in England they were obligatory. |
| MacLean v. MacLean | 1792 | Debt, Arrestment, Trustee, Interlocutor, Promissory note, Inhibition | John MacLean petitioned the Court to recall the inhibition placed against him by Mrs Janet MacLean and William Scott her husband, alleging that it had been obtained without proper grounds and was being used to distress him in his business. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Miliken v. Interlocutor | 1802 | Co-deudor, Dissolution, Debt, Promissory note | In 1790, the pursuer lent some money to Love, Davidson, and Co. The debt was secured with a promissory note, which the pursuer had intended to be effective. Around 1792, two of the four shareholders, Andrew Crawford and John Love Senior, decided to transfer their interest in the company. In return of the transfer, the other shareholders agreed to pay all the debts of the company by February 1795. However, Love, Davidson and Co. was dissolved in 1794 and the pursuer had not received his payment by that time. The pursuer brought an action to alter the interlocutor with regards to the company insolvency and debts with the purpose to hold liable the retired shareholders of the promissory note, since he lent his money trusting that his debt was secured by all the shareholders as co-obligants. |
| Nairne v. Cranstoun | 1795 | Debt, Bankruptcy, Sequestration, Creditor, Bill of Exchange, Promissory note | Alexander Nairne, trustee for the sequestrated estate of Peter and Francis Forrester, opposed Thomas Cranstoun’s petition to alter Lord Methven’s interlocutor and rank A. Laidlaw’s undiscounted bills in the estate. Nairne contended that Laidlaw’s failure to discount the bills forfeited double-ranking rights, while Cranstoun sought the alteration to allow the ranking. The respondent argued that the transaction between Forrester and Laidlaw constituted an equal exchange of obligations and that the interlocutor should not be altered. |
| Orrs v . Batchin and Birkmyre | 1793 | Bill of Exchange, Bankruptcy, Promissory note, Creditor, Arrestment, Debt | William Orr pursued an action against the Paisley merchants Batchin and Birkmyre regarding the negotiation of a promissory note and petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor. The respondents opposed the motion, arguing that the pursuer's clerk had negligently delayed transmitting the dishonoured note, while maintaining that they themselves had exercised due diligence in recovering payment. |
| Rankine and Son v. Belch | 1790 | Creditor, Debt, Bill of Exchange, Forgery, Reduction, Promissory note | Defender Peter Belch argued that the indorsement by Rankine and Son was genuine and that he held no material interest in the matter, as he would recover value from David Mitchell, who had received full value. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Robertson and Husband v. Holland | 1775 | Debt, Arrestment, Bill of Exchange, Promissory note, Reduction, Security | Martha Robertson, petitioner, sought payment on a bill from William Holland, respondent; at the same time, Archibald Ochiltree sought payment from Holland on a promissory note that was payable to Robertson but had been indorsed to Ochiltree. Robertson and Holland offered differing accounts of the facts surrounding the bill and promissory note. According to Robertson, Holland voluntarily granted the instruments on behalf of a friend, Charles Bolingbroke, who fled the country without paying his debts to Robertson. However, according to Holland, Robertson solicited the instruments so that she could show them to her creditors, without any intention that they would actually be paid. In Holland’s telling, a receipt signed by Robertson was intended to secure him against any demand for payment. In addition to disputing the facts, Robertson presented legal arguments against the receipt’s validity, which related to her status as a married woman. Holland argued that the bills were invalid because Robertson had paid no value for them. A number of depositions are included in the case documents. |
| Rossel, et al v. Fraser | 1787 | Debt, Creditor, Promissory note, Bill of Exchange, Prescription, Succession | Patrick Fraser, merchant in Edinburgh, petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Eskgrove regarding his claim of debt. James Russel, William Cooper, and others, upholsterers in Edinburgh and trustees for Isobel Boog, answered the petition, contesting Fraser’s entitlement to the alteration. The dispute centered on whether the court should modify the prior interlocutor in favor of Fraser’s debt claim against the trust estate. |
Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 133)
- (EXCERPT from Minute of Meeting of Committee of Management,—25th July 1826.—Vide Appendix to Reclaiming Note, No. 3, p. 4.) (EXCERPT.)
- 367.—MINUTE for David Milne, Esq. Judicial-Factor on the Estate of Billie; In the Action of Count and Reckoning at the instance of William Foreman Home, Esq. of Billie and Paxton,
- Adam Ferrie v. David Mathie — Bill of Suspension, 9 Feb 1822
- Adam Ferrie v. William Ewing — Answers, 29 May 1824
- Additional Appen. to Rec. Note, James W. Lyon & Company against Lord Robertson's Interlocutor
- Additional Appendix to Rec. Note.—R. H. Middlemass against Lord Moncreiff's Interlocutor
- Agnes Sommerville and her Husband v. Margaret M'Kechnie, &c. — Summons, 2 Feb 1815
- Alexander Baird v. Alexander Waddell — Bill of Suspension, 4 Feb 1822 [2]
- Alexander Nairne v. Thomas Cranstoun — Answers, 2 Jan 1796
- Alexander Nairne v. Thomas Cranstoun — Answers, 2 Jan 1796 [3]
- Alexander Shepperd v. John Matheson, Miss Barbara Murray, Robert Simpson, William Bremner, and John Fraser — Condescendence, 21 Nov 1820
- Andrew Lockie, John Gray and Peter Ker v. John Mason — Petition, 23 Dec 1836
- ANSWERS FOR Mess. Douglas, Heron, and Company, late Bankers in Ayr; TO THE PETITION of the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, and others, Creditors of Mess. Alexander, la
- ANSWERS for William Rose Robinson, Esquire, and Others, Trustees of the late James Little, W. S. TO THE FOREGOING REPRESENTATION.
- Appendix to Note of Appeal for David Duff, & Others, in Sequestration of Archibald Menzies
- Appendix to Petition for William Dean and Attorney
- APPENDIX. No. I. Copy from the EXTRACT REGISTERED PROTEST, No. 2. in Process.
- APPENDIX. No. I. Excerpts from Heritable Bond by Mess. Alexanders to Mr Pulteney.
- APPENDIX. N° I. Copy LETTER, J. Kinnear to Hercules Scott.
- BILL OF SUSPENSION (No. 1.) FOR JOHN CAMPBELL, Esq; of [illegible], THOMAS LAING, Merchant in Glasgow, and others Petitioners against [illegible] Defender
- Captain William Jardine of Applegirth v. Barbarie de la Motte — Proof, 27 Sep 1786
- Charles Steuart v. Andrew Miller — information, 2 Jul 1799
- Christopher Tod Brown v. Robert Nimmo — Answers, 22 Apr 1824
- Coalston v. Stewart — Petition, 13 Nov 1770
- Colonel Taylor v. Sir William Forbes, James Hunter and Company — Appendix [2]
- Cranstoun — Petition, 11 Jun 1795
- David Cuthbertson v. The Commissioners for forming London Street of Glasgow, and Others — Summons, 7 Apr 1830
- David Lillie and Henry Lillie v. Mrs Margaret Lillie or Smith and Others — State, 6 Sep 1832
- David Wemyss v. Robert Steel, Robert Alburn, John Maberly, and Alexander Duncan — Information, 6 Jul 1792
- David Young and Others v. William Ross — Revised Case, 21 May 1830
- Donald Campbell v. William Wilson and Donald Macintyre — Bill of Suspension, 14 Nov 1825
- Donald Campbell v. Wilson and Macintyre — Answers, 19 Nov 1825 [2]
- Donald M'Donald and Alexander M'Donald v. George Gibson — Replies, 21 Jun 1792
- Dugald M'Callum v. James Young of Calderside and William Young, Younger of Calderside — Revised Condescendence and Answers, 13 Nov 1849
- Edward Weston and William White Millar v. A. Winton & Company — State of the Process, 5 May 1858
- Eliza Campbell and Andrew Campbell v. Thomas Laurie, James Reid, William Gilmour, William Leckie Ewing, Andrew Reid, James Lindsay Ewing, and Archibald Grahame — Bill of Suspension, 27 Mar 1829 [2]
- EUL0281 doc0044
- George Husband Baird v. Trustees of the late James Little, W.S. — Bill of Suspension, 18 Nov 1824
- Gourlay v. Glen — Petition, 21 Nov 1786
- Henderson and Livingstone v. Laing — Appendix
- Hugh Baillie v. John Bland — Memorial, 13 Feb 1772
- II.—REVISED CONDESCENDENCE for Pursuers, and REVISED ANSWERS thereto for DEFENDERS.
- II.—STATEMENT of FACTS for SusPENDER, WITH ANSWERS thereto for CHARGER.
- III.—STATEMENT of FACTS for Defenders, and ANSWERS thereto by Pursuers.
- INDEX. PROOF for the Prosecutors.
- James Alexander v. James Hill and George Scott — Information, 15 Nov 1824 [3]
- James King v. Patrick and William Creighton and George Creighton — Note, 1 Dec 1840
- James Russel and William Cooper v. Patrick Fraser — Answers, 15 Jan 1788
- James Walter Lyon & Company and James Walter Lyon v. Isaac Lazars or Lizars — Reclaiming Note, 22 Feb 1848 [2]
- Jean Coalston, Pursuer v. Archibald Stewart, Merchant in Queensferry, Defender — Petition, 13 Nov 1770
- John Boursiquot v. Robert M'Kean and Co. and Others — Summons, 27 Apr 1814 [2]
- John Boyd, Junior v. William Dirom — Reclaiming Petition, 29 May 1827
- John Dryden v. John Campbell junior — Answers, 21 Jan 1823
- John Dryden v. John Campbell junior — Bill of Suspension, 9 Mar 1821
- John Gordon Campbell and Andrew Campbell v. Thomas Laurie and others — Bill of Suspension, 27 Mar 1829
- John Houston Mason v. Thomas Hunter and James Edmond — Answers, 12 Dec 1782
- John Macdonald junior v. Alexander Gilmour — Answers, 1837
- John Macdonald, Junr. v. Alexander Gilmour — Bill of Advocation, 5 Jan 1837
- John Slater v. George Henderson and Archibald Scot — Answers, 14 Oct 1819 [2]
- John Sym v. James King — Information, 1 Jun 1796
- John Tainsh v. Hugh James Rollo — Answers, 17 May 1824 [2]
- John Thomson, Gibson, and Company v. William William Baxter and Thomas Baxter — Appendix
- LC Volume 06 — Petition, 27 Jun 1821 [2]
- M'Callum and Garrioch and George M'Callum v. John Stewart — Note
- Maclean — Petition, 30 May 1792
- Margaret M'Kechnie and Others v. Agnes Somerville and Husband — Summons, 18 Feb 1815 [2]
- Martha Robertson v. William Holland — Answers, 5 Dec 1775
- Mess. Bland and Company v. Walter Ewing and Company and Robert Dinwiddie — Answers, 27 Feb 1777
- Messrs Dicksons v. Messrs Gibbs — Bill of Suspension, 2 Jun 1820
- Messrs Murray and Henderson v. James Kincaid — Answers, 19 Oct 1797
- Messrs. Rundell, Bridge, and Rundell v. Lady Montgomerie and Sir Charles Lamb — Appendix, 16 Nov 1829
- Mrs Ann Boyd or Wyse and William Wyse v. Mrs Susan Burgess or Wyse — Revised Condescendence and Answers
- Mrs Janet Turnbull or Harper v. James Gracie — Reclaiming Note, 20 Nov 1856
- Mrs Jean Buchanan v. Corbett, Borthwick and Co. — Answers
- Muir & Company v. M'Donald & M'Nab — Bill of Suspension, 29 May 1830
- Nairne — Petition, 3 Dec 1795
- No. III. PRODUCTIONS with Petition for Sequestration of the Estates of NICOLL and Company, and INDIVIDUAL PARTNER.
- No. IV. MISSIVE of ACKNOWLEDGMENT by A. C. Younger to John Jenkin. No. V. CONDESCENDENCE for PURSUER.
- No. IV. THREE PROMISSORY NOTES by Christopher Middlemass, Junr. to John Hume, concluded for in the Summons
- Orrs v . Batchin and Birkmyre — Petition, 17 Jan 1793
- Peter Belch v. John Rankine and Son — Memorial, 7 Jan 1790
- Petition — Alexander Nairne, Trustee for the Creditors of Forresters against an Inner-House Interlocutor
- Petition — British Linen Company and their Manager against Lord Mackenzie's Interlocutor
- Petition — Christopher Tod Brown, Whip Manufacturer, Leith Walk
- Petition — Colonel Harry Gordon of Knockespeck
- Petition — F. B. M'DONAGH, Esq. against Lord Methven's Interlocutor
- Petition — James Kincaid
- Petition — James Scarth for Personal Protection to David Steel
- Petition — James, Wood, & James; and Mandatory. against the Interlocutor of Lord Gillies [2]
- Petition — Jean Coalston, and Patrick Walker, her Husband for his Interest
- Petition — John Charters, John Dickson
- Petition — John Telford, Esq. for Execution pending, an Appeal
- Petition — Louis Ruffin } for a sequestration
- Petition — Mrs Nancy Shortreid for a Warrant of Enrolment
- Petition — Peggy Kelvie against Inner-House Interlocutor
- Petition — Peggy Kelvie against Lord Eldin's Interlocutor
- Petition — Rev. James Dingwall against an Inner-House Interlocutor
- Petition — Robert Waddell of the Middle-Temple, London, Solicitor at Law
- Petition — Sir William Ramsay, P
- Petition — Thomas George against Inner-House Interlocutor
