In this case, the trustees for the creditors of Richard Cameron asked the court to void a tack granted by Cameron to his brother-in-law Andrew Gray. The trustees alleged that Cameron had granted the tack while insolvent, and that he had agreed to a price that was lower than the land’s market value. Andrew Gray, the tacksman, disputed these points. He further argued that the tack was necessary because Cameron had planned to go to Virginia. Case documents include a proof containing numerous depositions.
Documents in this case (2)
- Robertson — Petition, 13 Feb 1781February 13, 1781 Information of the pursuers, arguing that Richard Cameron, while insolvent and bankrupt, granted a tack of Carntyne lands to his brother-in-law Andrew Gray for an undervalued rent and without just caus…
- John Robertson and others, Trustees for the Creditors of Richard Cameron late of Carntyne v. Andrew Gray — Answers, 12 Jun 1781June 12, 1781 Information of defenders, arguing that tacks and sales entered into by Richard Cameron were fair, equitable, and not intended to defraud creditors
People & places in this case
People involved
- John Robertson — Pursuer
- Robert Carrick — Pursuer
- David Elliot — Pursuer
- Patrick Colquhoun — Pursuer
- Andrew Gray — Defender
- Richard Cameron — Defender
- William Craig, Lord Craig — Advocate for Pursuer
- John MacLaurin, Lord Dreghorn — Advocate for Defender
- David Dalrymple, of Westhall, Lord Westhall — Lord Ordinary
- Buchanans, Hastie, and Company — Named in case documents
- Andrew Buchanan — Named in case documents
- Walter Brock — Named in case documents
- Robert Hastie — Named in case documents
- James Jamieson — Named in case documents
- William Buchanan — Named in case documents
- John Wilson — Named in case documents
- Henry Peat — Named in case documents
- John Macarthur — Named in case documents
Places
Where this case took place
In this case, the trustees for the creditors of Richard Cameron asked the court to void a tack granted by Cameron to his brother-in-law Andrew Gray. The trustees alleged that Cameron had granted the tack while insolvent, and that he had agreed to a price that was lower than the land’s market value. Andrew Gray, the tacksman, disputed these points. He further argued that the tack was necessary because Cameron had planned to go to Virginia. Case documents include a proof containing numerous depositions.
