Legal Subject: Debt

Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
Alexander Irvine of Drum v. The Earl of Aberdeen, &c 26 Jun 1776 Debt, Estate The estate of Alexander Irvine of Drum was heavily burdened with debts at the time of his death. The estate went through a series of family members. Through this process, some debts were relieved but others were added. The estate was sold in 1736 to cover the debts. A small part of the estate was set aside for the Irvine family, but most of the estate went to the Earl of Aberdeen or Patrick Duff of Premnay. After John Irvine of Drum's death in 1737, the successor to the estate, Alexander Irvine of Crimond, mounted a legal challenge to the settlement of the estate. The pursuer in the present case was Alexander Irvine of Drum, grandson of Alexander Irvine of Drum. The 3rd Earl of Aberdeen, taking up a cause inherited from his father, and Patrick Duff argued that the Irvine family has no valid claims against them.
Belchier v. Palmer 5 Mar 1776 Debt, Estate In 1759, William Belchier purchased the estate of Grange in Scotland. Belchier died without children, leaving his estate to his older brother, John Belchier, in liferent and to his nephew, James-William Belchier, in fee. Several creditors of the decedent William Belchier brought actions of constitution and adjudication against his estate. Defenders Charlton Palmer and William Walker, creditors of William Belchier, sought a sale of William Belchier's estate and a ranking of the creditors. (The defenders mistakenly brought the action only against the liferenter, John Belchier, but later amended the action to include the apparent heir, James-William Belchier.) To expedite the process and reserve some of the estate for themselves, the pursuers also brought an action for the sale and ranking of the estate. This led to a dispute concerning which action—the creditors' or the apparent heirs'—should proceed.
Competition Among the Creditors of Macfarlane Dec 1766 Debt, Arrestment, Shipping This case was a dispute among the creditors of David Macfarlane, a merchant of St. Christophers (St. Kitts). In 1764, Macfarlane sent a shipment of sugar from St. Croix to Port Glasgow, consigning it to James King. Macfarlane instructed King to sell the sugar and apply the proceeds to pay certain of Macfarlane’s creditors, who were set forth in a list. When the sugar arrived in Scotland, however, some of Macfarlane’s creditors sought an arrestment. This led to a competition among Macfarlane’s creditors. In the course of the proceeding, the Lord Ordinary ruled that the consigned sugar could not be arrested, and a group of joint petitioners sought review. In August 1766, the Court of Session ruled against them. In November 1766, Messrs. Greenshiels and Wardrope petitioned the court again, this time on their own, arguing that they should be treated differently from other creditors because they did not receive notice of the shipment. In December 1766 the Court adhered to its earlier interlocutor.
Cunningham and Simpson v. Walker and Smith 6 Jul 1799 Expenses, Common debt, Debt, Debtors Case originated with debt due by the bankrupt fugitive Walter McFarlane, stabler in the Canongate, to Cunningham and Simpson. Other Creditors, but not including Cunningham and Simpson gathered and decided to have Walker and Smith auction off Mcfarlane's assets. Cunningham and Simpson challenged the right of Walker and Smith to claim the goods in order to pay off creditors. Cunningham and Simpson succeeded in claiming expenses from Walker and Smith.
Donald v. Murdoch 1771 Debt Charger Susan Murdoch sought to collect on a bond from suspenders Robert Donald, James Hepburn, and Walter Stirling. Stirling was also a nephew and factor to Murdoch. The suspenders refused to pay on the bond, alleging that Murdoch suffered from mental infirmity and old age ("weak both in body and in mind"). Murdoch denied this charge and maintained that the suspenders fabricated this allegation to delay or avoid payment on the bond. The suspenders denied that they were trying to take advantage of Murdoch. They maintained they were still obligated to pay on the bond at five percent interest. They also argued that Murdoch is not capable of taking care of her own affairs, and that other individuals in Murdoch's life were trying to get their hands on the money from the bond.
Douglas v. Robson's Creditors 1802 Debt, Meeting of creditors, Bankrupt After Mrs. Isobel Douglas (pursuer) knew about William Robson’s bankruptcy, she was involved in a competition with certain creditors of Robson, because she had a bond issued by William Robson and his two brothers to secure a debt. Robson’s creditors held a meeting without Ms. Douglas and executed a document (interlocutor) that did not include the debt of the pursuer. Ms. Douglas sought to change the interlocutor in order to include her debt and demanded the payment of her debt, principal, interest, and expenses.
Edmonstone v. Tweedale 1772 Debt In 1766, Robert Tweedale, defender, owed money to James Edmonstone, pursuer. Tweedale could not repay Edmonstone at that time. As security for the eventual payment, Tweedale granted Edmonstone the right to "infeft," or take possession of, some old houses in Mid-Calder. Edmonstone agreed to delay seeking payment provided that Tweedale delivered possession of the houses to him. Despite this agreement, Edmonstone did not take possession of the houses and allowed Tweedale to continue living in them. Edmonstone grew tired of the delays in payment and found that the homes were in such a poor state of repair that their sale would not cover the cost of the debt. Edmonstone brought a process against Tweedale before the sheriff-depute of Edinburgh seeking to collect payment. He argued that the homes stood as security for future payment of the debt, and did not constitute the payment itself. Tweedale, however, countered that his infestment to Edmonstone satisfied the debt, an argument that the sheriff-depute accepted. In the Court of Session, the Lord Ordinary initially found for Edmonstone, but later reversed his own ruling. The documents here represent Edmonstone's attempts to convince the full court to rule in his favor.
Findlay v. Graham 1773 Debt, Copartnership In 1739 James Findlay entered into a partnership with John Graham, James Stirling, Alexander Wotherspoon, and John Buchanan for slaughtering and selling cattle. Wotherspoon was appointed clerk, bookkeeper, and cashier of the partnership. Findlay was responsible for purchasing cattle and selling live cattle that were not fit for slaughter. Findlay was illiterate so he relied on Wotherspoon to keep proper accounts of the business. In February 1740, the partnership dissolved. The partners sought to settle all the accounts of the business. Findlay alleged that Wotherspoon was negligent in maintaining the company's accounts and argued that the partnership owed him money for the fifty cows he purchased in 1739 on partnership's behalf. The defenders claimed that Findlay was actually in debt to the company. They argued that Findlay was reimbursed for the fifty cows, or that he made this payment using company funds rather than his own funds.
George Forbes v. Ann Mackenzie and Richard Paterson 1775 Agent, Debt, Poor's Roll Defenders Ann Mackenzie and Richard Paterson retained pursuer George Forbes to help them recover a £. 200 bond granted to Mackenzie’s deceased father. Mackenzie and Paterson subsequently learned that they were eligible to receive court-appointed counsel through the “poor’s roll.” They successfully petitioned the Court of Session for the benefit of the poor’s roll and had the contract with Forbes voided. Forbes, who had already started working to recover the bond, sued Mackenzie and Patterson for the balance on their account. Mackenzie and Paterson disputed the amount that was owed and claimed that it should not be due until they had successfully recovered payment for the bond.
Gibson and Balfour v. Cheape 12 Dec 1799 Debt Cheape was co-cautioner on a bill for debt due by Baillie, Blinshall, Sadler in Edinburgh, to Gibson and Balfour. Gibson and Balfour attempted to receive payment from Cheape. Cheape countered that the debt was no longer valid, as the bill was more than seven years old.
Grant v. Thomson 1776 Debt, Arrestment Pursuer John Grant was a creditor of John Taylor, who became insolvent and unable to repay Grant. Grant obtained two letters of horning against Taylor for his failure to repay. Grant learned that defender George Thomson, an innkeeper in Leith, was a debtor of Taylor. Grant used arrestments to bring an action against Thomson for the sum he owed to Taylor. Thomson had granted two bills payable to Taylor for the sum owed, which were then indorsed by Taylor to defender Alexander Ogilvie as clerk of the Edinburgh rope-work company. (Taylor owed money to this company for the purchase of ropes and sails.) The defenders argued that sums due by bill were not subject to arrestment. Grant conceded that this was true in the case of a bona fide indorsee. Grant maintained, however, that the bills were subject to arrestment where transactions were used to shield a debtor's assets from creditors. The defenders responded that the transactions at issue were bona fide and arms-length transactions.
In re Jean Alexander 1779 Debt, Ranking of Creditors Jean Alexander, petitioner, held a bond on behalf of a French niece of her father, William Alexander, deceased Lord Provost of Edinburgh. The obligants on the bond were her brothers Robert and William. However, the former was deceased and the latter was bankrupt, and she had failed to produce her interest in time for a process of ranking upon William's estate. She petitioned the Court to have it inserted after the fact.
Jean Coalston, Pursuer v. Archibald Stewart, Merchant in Queensferry, Defender 3 Aug 1770 Bankruptcy, Debt 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.
John Finlay and Trustees v. Robert Finlay and Trustees 1772 Debt, Copartnership, Bankruptcy John Finlay, pursuer, was the son of Robert Finlay, defender. John and Robert operated a shoe factory in Glasgow as a partnership. Robert owned two-thirds interest and John owned one-third. The partnership experienced financial difficulty and was placed in trusteeship. John's trustees sued Robert's trustees to see if Robert owed any money to John from the venture. Robert insisted that he did not owe any money and sought certain documents and books from the partnership.
John Skeill v. Humphry-Bland Gardiner 1775 Debt, Estate John Skeill, pursuer, provided horses for Robert Gardiner, father of the defendant and Commissary for British forces in Scotland. Skeill contends that he was paid for the use of his horses in the summer of 1759 but not for the period of November 1759 to March 1760. Gardiner claims that he was very young when these transactions took place, but that there is ample evidence that the troops had been removed from their encampment by early November 1759, so that his father would no longer have needed Skeill's services. Case documents include depositions and accounts.
Kemloe v. Dun, Reid, and Company 15 Jan 1767 Debt In 1756, Gideon Kemloe, a merchant in Stonehaven (Stonehyve), cosigned as security on a load of cloth purchased by William Wise on credit from Dun and Company in Aberdeen. Wise could not sell the linen, and Kemloe became charged with making the payment to Dun and Company. Kemloe sought a suspension of this payment, claiming that since Dun and Company were already in debt to Wise, that debt should be settled first. Handwritten notation on case document says "refused."
Kempt v. Liddell 1771 Debt, Evidence In the early 1750s, pursuer James Kempt and defender David Liddel entered into a co-partnership for distilling spirits in Leith. In 1752 Kempt sued Liddel for outstanding debts arising from the partnership. One piece of evidence in the litigation was a cash-book mostly written by Liddel. The suit was dormant until revived in 1766. By this time the original cash-book written by Liddel was missing. In its place Kempt supplied a cash-book written by him (Kempt) or another person. Liddel maintained that this newer cash-book did not contain the original records of the co-partnership and therefore cannot be used against him in the litigation.
Ker v. Creditors of Sutherland 1772 Debt, Ranking of Creditors, Estate Alexander Sutherland of Kinminity granted a bond to the late Alexander Gordon of Garty. Gordon used this bond as collateral in dealings with other persons. Pursuer Elizabeth Ker's late husband, James Ker, was one of Gordon's creditors. Ker sought to collect on the bond, and he obtained for himself, and as assignee on behalf of certain other persons, a decree of adjudication against Alexander Gordon's son. Elizabeth Ker sought to collect on the bond on her late husband's behalf. Creditors of Sutherland, including George Dunbar, also sought to collect on the bond. At issue was whether Ker's claim could be treated pari passu (on equal footing) with the claims of Sutherland's creditors, such George Dunbar. Elizabeth Ker maintained that her husband's adjudication was timely, within a year and a day of another creditor's adjudication, so she should be ranked in her due order of preference. The creditors of Sutherland maintained that they had priority over Ker.
Lunn v. Creditors of Lunn 1803 Bankruptcy, Debt, Liferent In May 1799, Walter Lunn, the Pursuer, was rendered bankrupt and subsequently sued for cessio bonorum. The Pursuer claimed that his insolvency was the result of innocent misfortune, while the Defender, his creditors, claimed that the Pursuer had engaged in fraud, thus disqualifying him from cessio bonorum. John Nixon, as Defender court-appointed trustee of Lunn's sequestered estate, opposed Lunn's claim to cessio bonorum after Nixon's review of Lunn's finances returned a much larger debt than Lunn had originally claimed. Nixon challenged the profits that Lunn claimed from a subject in Edinburgh liferented by his wife. Nixon argued that these rents were far less conseqential than Lunn claimed and that a competing claim on these rents by the family of Mrs. Lunn currently before the court would cause long delays in Walter Lunn's creditors receiving any of this money. Nixon also claimed that Lunn overstated the travel expenses he incurred while working as a traveling packman through the country of Roxburgshire.
M'Lehose and Others v. Parks 1775 Debt James Shiels wanted to sell certain parcels of his estate in Partick, which had been encumbered by his and his father’s creditors. The creditors agreed to ratify these sales; in exchange, James agreed to dispone to the creditors the remainder of his estate. After this deal was executed, one creditor broke with the others and attached the property that James had disponed. Nonetheless, the non-adjudicating creditors proceeded to sell the property at auction. William M’Lehose, the purchaser, granted bond for the price, joined by his sons William and James (the eventual defender). However, in recognition of the ongoing adjudication, M’Lehose stipulated that he would retain the sale price, bearing interest, until the encumbrance was removed. The dispute continued for some time, and the creditors alleged that James M’Lehose was delaying its resolution. They sought an order from the Lord Ordinary requiring the accrued interest to be capitalized so that it would bear interest going forward.
Maclean v. Maclean 1771 Debt, Creditor Archibald Maclean had won a judgement against John Maclean for the payment of debts arising from the sale of some merchant goods and a cow. John claimed that he was liable for the merchant goods, but challenged the bill for the cow charges. He alleged that this debt was assigned to some other people by selling the cow.
Mary Muir v. Isobel Buchanan 1771 Debt, Estate, Compensation, Oath of Party, Intrinsic and Extrinsic In connection with the marriage of James Taylor and Mary Muir, Mary’s brother James Muir agreed to pay a tocher, or dowry, of 2000 merks. The debt went unpaid for several years. However, shortly after James Muir’s death, Taylor sought payment from Muir’s widow, Isobel Buchanan, and her children. (James Taylor died during the litigation, and the case was taken up by Mary Muir acting as his executrix.) As defender, Buchanan claimed that the tocher debt was more than offset by various sums that James Muir had advanced to his sister and brother-in-law over the years. In considering the parties’ competing claims, the court addressed a number of questions about which debts could properly be used to offset each other and what evidence was competent to prove those debts. Case documents discuss various commercial pursuits by the parties, including Mary Muir.
McHarg v. Dunn 1771 Debt, Estate Pursuer Agnes McHarg sought to collect from defender William Dunn on a bill payable to her late husband, Alexander McCredie. Dunn challenged the authenticity of the bill, relevant dates, and the rate of interest. McHarg maintained the bill was authentic and properly dated from 1748. McHarg also cast doubt on Dunn's testimony and allegations.
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.
Miller v. Semple 19 Jun 1776 Bonds, Debt Under a marriage contract executed in 1724, the late John Semple promised his wife Ann Lindsay an annuity of 300 merks. Ann Lindsay's father James Lindsay provided that his estate was to go to his heirs, but it passed to John Semple due to various deaths in the family. In 1747, John Semple sold the estate to John Miller, pursuer. At issue is whether there were debts attached to the estate. Defender John Semple, nephew of the aforementioned John Semple, maintained there were no debts attached to the estate because the earlier Semple received the estate through his deceased son, not through his wife Ann Lindsay. Semple argued that the wife only had a life interest (liferent) in the estate. Pursuer John Miller argued that Semple received the estate by deed of his wife.
Mrs Anne Nielson, &c v. Austins 14 Jan 1767 Aliment, Debt This case involved a dispute over how much money a husband owed his wife's family in aliment so that the wife could live with her family and the marriage could remain secret. William Sloan (deceased) and Anne Nielson (the Pursuer) married in secret in 1752 when Nielson was only seventeen. At the time, Sloan was in divinity school and felt that the relationship would be perceived as inappropriate for a man of his upbringing and occupation. Once married, Sloan claimed that revealing his part in a secret or clandestine marriage would be equally fatal to his career. In 1754, he granted bond to Neilson's trustees, her brother and uncle, to pay an annual stipend to Nielson's family to cover her living expenses. During their marriage and until Sloan's death in 1765, Anne Nielson and William Sloan never lived together as husband and wife. Sloan lived and worked as a minister in Dunscore, while Nielson lived with her mother in Edinburgh. When the case came before the Court of Session in 1765, the Court ruled that Sloan, who had died in debt, could only have been expected to pay Anne Nielson what he could reasonably afford, and the Court reduced the yearly payment due to Anne Nielson from the amount claimed by her trustees. The Nielson family appealed this decision. Sloan's executors also argued that due to Nielson's silence about her marriage when Sloan was alive, Sloan's creditors had no knowledge of Sloan's financial obligations to his wife at the time they lent him money, and that her latent claims to aliment were now unjustly delaying repayment of debts due to Sloan's creditors.
Murdoch and Miller v. Home and Scott 1773 Debt, Competition, Ranking of Creditors Andrew Wilson, writer in Bo'ness, died with debts owed to creditors. His eldest son James Wilson sought to pay off the debts by a judicial sale of a tenement in Bo'ness, owned by the father. The pursuers and defenders in this case were competing creditors. Pursuers Murdoch and Millar (alternatively spelled "Miller") claim rightful ownership of the tenement based on a heritable bond dating back to Andrew Wilson's purchase of the tenement. In 1725 Wilson granted a heritable bond to two merchants in Edinburgh, who then assigned their interests to Peter Murdoch and William Millar, the fathers of the pursuers. The defenders argued the adjudication to Messrs. Murdoch and Miller was null and void. The pursuers asserted an interest in the tenement based on a separate creditor proceeding ("decree cognitionis causa") brought against Andrew Wilson through his heir James. Thus, the pursuers claimed they should be ranked side by side with Defenders.
Murray v. McNaught 24 May 1799 Arrestment, Debt James Murray brought an action against John McNaught, the former minister for the parish of Girthon, accusing him of fiscal irresponsibility. Murray, who supplied McNaught's stipend, accused the minister of squandering his income and racking up debts. Murray sought to recover funds from McNaught.
Representatives of Lowthian v. Representatives of Aglianby 1803 Terce, Debt, Burgage Case involves the question of whether the defendant must apply the rents from Staffold estate in the English county of Cumberland to extinguish a debt due from George Ross to Richard Lowthian, deceased husband to the defender and uncle to Ross.
Richardson and Tait v. Thomson 1775 Debt, Assignment David Thomson of Ingliston, defender, granted a bond to James Thomson, who conveyed shares of the bond to many different assignees. Several of these assignees made further assignments, and the pursuers, John Richardson and John Tait, came to possess a four-sixths share of the bond. Richardson and Tait sued David Thomson for payment. In the ensuing process, Thomson alleged that Tait and Richardson were merely trustees for certain assignees whom he had already paid. In response, Richardson and Tait claimed to be Thomson’s rightful creditors, having exchanged ready money for shares that the earlier assignees were unable to collect. Richardson and Tait also argued that David Thomson had missed a deadline for continuing to contest the case.
Robertson and Husband v. Holland 1775 Debt 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.
Thomas and Alexander Peters, Merchants in Glasgow, v. Alexander Spiers, Andrew Blackburn, and Others, Trustees for James Dunlop, Merchant in Glasgow 27 Jan 1767 Debt In 1763, Glasgow merchant James Dunlop, whose affairs at the time were in a state of confusion, arranged for Alexander Speirs, Andrew Blackburn, and Andrew Syme to become his trustees. Under this agreement, Speirs et al agreed that all debts they recovered on Dunlop's behalf would go first to paying for the duties Dunlop owed on imported tobacco. In July 1763, the ship Betsy arrived in Greenock from Virginia with tobacco belonging to James Dunlop and 16 hogsheads of tobacco consigned to Thomas and Alexander Peters of Glasgow by Walter Peter and Company in Virginia. Dunlop traveled to Greenock to enter his tobacco. At the request of Thomas and Alexander Peters, Dunlop entered in their 16 hogsheads well and was repaid the import duties. When Thomas and Alexander Peters could not secure the delivery of their 16 hogsheads from Dunlop, they brought action against Dunlop in the Court of Session, and as a result the tobacco was arrested in the hands of Josiah Corthine, collector of the customs at Port Glasgow. In August 1764, Dunlop and his agents William Wallace and William King exported 89 hogsheads of tobacco in the ship Hero for Bourdeaux, and they were to receive payment from Corthine on this shipment as a drawback. The Pursuers claimed a right to this sum as repayment for their tobacco, and Speirs et al claimed a right to this sum under trust-right from Dunlop in bankruptcy.
Thomas Manson, Writer in Edinburgh v. John Angus, Merchant in Edinburgh 16 Jul 1771 Debt Andrew Farquhar, a shopkeeper in Edinburgh, owed money to defender John Angus, a merchant in Edinburgh. To satisfy this debt, Farquhar indorsed to Angus a bill payable by pursuer Thomas Manson. Farquhar later went bankrupt and was committed to prison. Manson refused to pay the bill and alleged that the transaction between Farquhar and Angus was "fraudulent and usurious." Manson argued, for example, that Angus sold goods to Farquhar at exorbitant profits. Angus denied this claim and maintained that Manson must pay the bill.
William Richardson v. Martin Fenwick 3 Mar 1772 Debt, Competition between Creditors William Richardson, pursuer, and Martin Fenwick, defender, both sought to collect on payments originally from John Bedford and Son, an English firm. Due to financial trouble, checks endorsed by John Bedford and Son could not be cashed. Instead, Richardson and Fenwick sought to collect from several Scottish firms that owed money to John Bedford and Son, such as Gibson and Balfour, Colin Mclaren and Samuel Patron. Under a "letter of arrestment ad jurisdictionem fundandam," a creditor could bring a foreign debtor's property under the jurisdiction of the Scottish court. In this case, the foreign debtor's property was debt. Fenwick used two arrestments in the hands of Gibson and Balfour, as debtors to Bedford and Son, to establish jurisdiction. He afterwards obtained a decree against Bedford and Son for payment and recourse. On the other hand, Richardson, upon the registered protest of his bill, had taken out letters of arrestment against Gibson and Balfour, and M'Laren and others, as debtors to Bedford and Son. Richardson and Fenwick disputed who had priority to these debts. Fenwick alleged that Richardson's procedure for authorizing letters of arrestment was irregular and therefore ineffective. Richardson disputed Fenwick's claim, and further argued that Fenwick incorrectly identified the debtor as Bedford and Son instead of John Bedford and Son.
Wilson and Company v. Hamilton and Company 1773 Debt, Agent, Sell of goods James Wilson and Company of Kilmarnock manufactured woolen carpets for sale in London. Since 1762, Malcolm Hamilton and Company had served as James Wilson & Company's London agent . The dispute related to a large quantity of James Wilson & Company's carpets left in a wharf cellar in London for five years. James Wilson & Company argued that because of Malcolm Hamiliton & Company's negligence it suffered some loss. The pursuer claimed that the carpets had been significantly damaged due to Malcolm Hamiliton & Company's neglect. The defender disputed these claims.