| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
