| Dunlop and Montgomery v. Peter |
1781
|
Power of Attorney, Debt, Succession, Creditor, Arrestment, Bill of Exchange |
This case was about an individual’s authority to act as attorney for Walter Peter, a Virginia merchant, in a case pending in Scotland. Messrs. Dunlop and Montgomery, the pursuers, sued Peter for payment of a debt that he allegedly owed them. When George Anderson appeared on Walter’s behalf, the pursuers claimed that he had no authority to do so. Although Anderson produced a power of attorney from Peter, the pursuers argued that it existed for the limited purpose of allowing Anderson to handle Peter’s succession to a particular estate. |
| Leggat v. Inner-House Interlocutor |
1787
|
Debt, Sequestration, Adjudication, Rent, Power of Attorney, Tack |
David Leggat petitioned the Court of Session to alter its recent interlocutor, raising the question of whether the Court should modify its prior order. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Macredie v. Cunninghames |
1776
|
Power of Attorney, Mala Fides, Plantation, Slavery and enslaved people, West Indies and Atlantic trade, Enslaved people named as property |
Thomas Macredie, a business associate of William Cunninghame, died intestate in July of 1753, leaving a 400-acre plantation in Augusta County, Virginia. Andrew and William Macredies, father and brother of Thomas, respectively, successively corresponded with William Cunninghame regarding the sale of "Macredie's Quarter," and when he returned to Glasgow in 1762, his brother, Alexander, took over the matter. Eventually the plantation was sold to Colonel Thomas Slaughter, who became bankrupt before making any payments on the land. In April of 1773, a few months after the death of Alexander Cunninghame, William Macredie brought action against William Cunninghame for the price of Macredie's Quarter, arguing that Cunninghame had spitefully withheld the bond for the land, following a dispute over Cunninghame's commission. William Cunninghame, on the other hand, argued that he had never been the official power of attorney, and therefore was not responsible for delivering the bond to Macredie. Lord Barskimming assoilzied (cleared) Cunninghame, and Macredie brought action against the heirs of Alexander Cunninghame. Cunninghame's heirs, the defenders, argued that the fault lay with Macredie, who had failed to seek out Alexander Cunninghame while he was still alive. After Barskimming assoilzied the defenders, Macredie reclaimed, and William Cunninghame was then ordained to exhibit all relevant correspondence on the matter. According to Macredie, these letters provided evidence of "collusion and artifice"; he therefore asked the Court to alter Barskimming's assoilment. Shortly afterward, however, for reasons not disclosed in the court documents, Macredie withdrew his objection to the Cunninghames' assoilment, and Lord Barskimming found Macredie liable for their legal expenses. |
| Robertson and Others, Petitioners |
1777
|
Curator Bonis, Insanity, Aliment, Succession, Creditor, Power of Attorney |
At the beginning of 1772 William Laird was said to have been "seized with a violent disorder which affected his head." According to Hary Robertson and George, James, and Alexander Oswalds, since then Laird had been incapable of conducting his own affairs and had been intermittently confined to his room for months at a time. At the beginning of 1777, upon returning from Mr Paxton's in Edinburgh, where he had been "riding, fencing, and learning the manual-exercise of a soldier," Laird assaulted James Dennistoun of Colgrain at the Cross of Glasgow. Laird was then seized and about to be committed to the tolbooth, when Robertson and the Oswalds persuaded the Glasgow Magistrates to allow his confinement at the Town Hospital instead. Robertson and the Oswalds then petitioned the Court of Session to appoint Harry Robertson "or any other proper person" as Laird's legal representative with the power to oversee his affairs. They explained that Laird had earlier granted a commission in favour of them to manage his business affairs, but that they also required the legal power to manage his private affairs as well. |
| Tyson v. Scott |
1770
|
Trust, Debt, Succession, Legacy, Executor, Power of Attorney |
Defender Walter Scott was a trustee for the late Thomas Cockburn, writer in Edinburgh. Cockburn originally planned to leave much of his estate to his nephew, John Simpson. Learning of Simpson's shortcomings as a businessperson, Cockburn changed his will to set up a trusteeship. Under the trusteeship, his wife Elisabeth Campbell and his nephew John Simpson would receive annual incomes. Cockburn designed the trusteeship to ward off any of Simpson's creditors. Cockburn died on December 2, 1765. On July 31, 1769, an arrestment was used at the instance of pursuer, Edward Tyson, acting as executor for the late John Watson, merchant in London who claimed to be a creditor of Mr. Simpson and Thomas Young, partner in business to Mr. Simpson. Tyson arrested all of Simpson's goods to cover outstanding debts. Tyson sought to collect assets from the Cockburn estate. |
