AI-transcribed

To stay (procedure or execution). To sist in an action is to join as plaintiff or defendant.

Definition source
Kinnear, J. B., Digest of House of Lords Cases Decided on Appeal from Scotland, 1709-1864 — Glossary of Scottish Law Terms (Edinburgh, 1865). Public domain.

Legal Subject: Sist

Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
A. Keltie v. R. Wilson 1827 Debt, Poinding, Sist, Inhibition, Diligence, Arrestment Andrew Keltie of Gelvan petitioned the Court against Robert Wilson, writer in Edinburgh, seeking relief from an illegal poinding executed in violation of a court-ordered stay. Keltie alleged that Wilson had poinded during a sist on a bill of suspension, breaching procedural protections and amounting to contempt of court. The litigation proceeded from an initial petition for redress to a Revised Case arguing that such poinding during suspension constituted contempt.
Boyd (Provost of Linlithgow) v. Cunningham 1832 Interlocutor, Suspension, Expenses, Adjudication, Sist, Corporation Cuninghams & Bell, W.S., asked the Court to allow them to sist themselves as parties in the suspension between pursuer John Boyd and defender George Cunninghame, seeking to repeat the interlocutor in their favour. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
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.
Hunt v. Wilson and Robb 1786 Arrestment, Diligence, Sist, Sequestration, Debt, Lis Alibi Pendens John Wilson and James Robb, as present Provost and Jailor, argued that they were not liable to William Love because a lis pendens barred diligence from the pursuer Hunt’s bill-chamber appearance. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Robert Armour v. Gavin Young 1788 Arrestment, Creditor, Sist, Debt, Cautioner, Bill of Exchange Gavin Young, merchant in London, pursued Robert Armour, merchant in Kilmarnock, claiming that Armour had incurred liability under the second obligation of a bond of presentation by breaching the first obligation through the obtaining of a bill of suspension prior to presentation. Armour defended that he had fairly fulfilled the bond, arguing that the suspension was ineffectual and had been obtained by Hugh Ferguson without his knowledge.
Robertson v. McClure 1779 Roup, Penalty, Removing, Sist, Debt, Adjudication In 1758, John McClure commissioned William Robertson to offer £112 for a house and yard at a public roup (auction). According to McClure, Robertson purchased the property at a higher rate than authorized. McClure refused to pay the price. Robertson then became subject to penalties and other expenses, which compelled him to bring a process against McClure before the Magistrates of Ayr. The Magistrates granted a decree in absence, against which McClure then obtained a (sist) judicial stay. Despite this stay, Robertson then made the debt over to James Fergusson. In August 1775, Fergusson obtained a decree of adjudication against McClure on account of the above-mentioned decree and some debts that had been owed by McClure's father. Fergusson then assigned this adjudication to Robert Robertson, the son of William Robertson. Robert Robertson took possession of some property owned by McClure after which he successfully brought a process of removing against him. McClure applied by bill of suspension to the Court of Session, which was refused by Lord Gardenstone. McClure then petitioned the Court for review, arguing that both debts were invalid: one, because there was a sist on it, and the other, because it had been extinguished by a decree of mails and duties obtained by Robertson. Furthermore, he argued that because his property were jointly owned by him and his four siblings, the charger's decree of moving was erroneous in regard to four-fifths of the property.
Skinner v. Bell 1832 Expenses, Trustee, Sist, Advocation, Tax, Feu J. R. Skinner, pursuer, presented a reclaiming petition asking the Court to alter Lord Corehouse's interlocutor in the action against Bell. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Smyth v. Bushby 1794 Advocation, Process, Sist, Procurator, Adjudication, Court of Session In the bill of advocation between Smyth and Bushby, the sheriff-clerks of Scotland moved the Court to recall an order that had permitted transmission of inferior court processes to the bill-chamber without warrant or security. The Clerks to the Bills opposed this relief, contending that the practice of granting two successive orders for production of inferior court process in such bills had been uniform since 1765.

Documents discussing this subject (44)