This case was about the ability of creditors to recover debts from an individual member of a partnership. The debtor in question, James Dunlop, was a partner in John Carlyle and Company. After Carlyle and Company failed, trustees were appointed to represent two separate but related interests: the partnership itself (for the purpose of unwinding the firm) and the partnership’s creditors. These trustees lodged two types of claims with the trustees of James Dunlop, who had also become insolvent. First, on behalf of the partnership, the trustees pursued claims for debts owed by Dunlop to the firm. Second, on behalf of the firm’s creditors, they claimed that Dunlop was personally liable for the firm’s debts. When Dunlop’s trustees refused these claims, the Carlyle trustees sued. Dunlop’s trustees, as defenders, argued that the pursuers could not be ranked on Dunlop’s estate for both categories of debt.
People involved
- Thomas Dunlop — Pursuer
- William Dunlop — Pursuer
- Robert Bogle — Pursuer
- Thomas Scott — Pursuer
- John Carlyle and Company — Named in case documents
- Alexander Speirs, Esq., of Elderslie — Defender
- Andrew Blackburn — Defender
- Andrew Syme — Defender
- James Dunlop Jr. — Named in case documents
- Robert MacQueen, Lord Braxfield — Advocate for Pursuer
- Henry Dundas, 1st Viscount Melville — Advocate for Defender
- John Morthland, of Rindmuir — Advocate for Pursuer
- Alexander Wight — Advocate for Defender
- William Craig, Lord Craig — Advocate for Defender
- Robert Blair, of Avontoun, Lord Avontoun — Advocate for Defender
- Sir Ilay Campbell, Lord Succoth, 1st Baronet of Succoth — Advocate for Pursuer
- Robert Bruce, of Kennet, Lord Kennet — Lord Ordinary
- James Douglas, of Mains — Named in case documents
- James White — Named in case documents
- John Carlyle — Named in case documents
- Gavin White — Named in case documents
- James Montgomery — Named in case documents
- James Dunlop Sr., 4th of Garnkirk — Named in case documents
Places
This case was about the ability of creditors to recover debts from an individual member of a partnership. The debtor in question, James Dunlop, was a partner in John Carlyle and Company. After Carlyle and Company failed, trustees were appointed to represent two separate but related interests: the partnership itself (for the purpose of unwinding the firm) and the partnership’s creditors. These trustees lodged two types of claims with the trustees of James Dunlop, who had also become insolvent. First, on behalf of the partnership, the trustees pursued claims for debts owed by Dunlop to the firm. Second, on behalf of the firm’s creditors, they claimed that Dunlop was personally liable for the firm’s debts. When Dunlop’s trustees refused these claims, the Carlyle trustees sued. Dunlop’s trustees, as defenders, argued that the pursuers could not be ranked on Dunlop’s estate for both categories of debt.
