AI-transcribed

Adjudication of Bankruptcy. Also the appointment by the Court of a receiver of the rents and profits of an estate pending litigation of the title. SEQUESTRATION FOR RENT; Distress by a landlord.

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: Sequestration

Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
Abraham Delvalle, and Others v. The Creditors of the York-Buildings Company 1783 Debt, Prescription, Creditor, Sequestration, Trustee, Trust After the York Buildings Company failed, its real property in Scotland became the subject of a ranking of creditors. In this ranking, a group of creditors objected to certain claims that had been submitted. In particular, the creditors made two key objections to claims based on bonds issued by the Company. First, the creditors objected that many bonds had been cut off by the Scottish statute of limitations, or “prescription.” In response, the affected bondholders argued that the prescription should not apply because the debts were still valid in England, where they had been contracted and where the York Buildings Company and its creditors resided. Second, the creditors objected that some bonds had been issued under value and should be ranked accordingly. The affected creditors argued that the bonds were negotiable instruments, and purchasers were entitled to rely on their face value. In the course of the proceedings, both sides filed petitions with the Court of Session.
Addis v. Shaw 1788 Debt, Bankruptcy, Aliment, Arrestment, Sequestration, Trustee George and Henry Addis, creditors of Angus Shaw, pursued Shaw and Alexander Macpherson, trustee, reporting on new production and a minute required by the Court. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Alexander Fergusson, and Others v. The Magistrates of Glasgow 1781 Tack, Arrestment, Reduction, Charter, Tax, Sequestration The pursuers, who were also suspenders in a related action, challenged the authority of the magistrates of Glasgow to impose a duty on potatoes.
Alexander-James Grant v. Countess of Sutherland 1773 Debt, Adjudication, Ranking of Creditors, Sequestration, Sasine, Title Alexander-James Grant petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor concerning the ranking of creditors. The Countess of Sutherland and her Tutors answered the petition, defending the existing determination of priority.
Alexanders vs. Gordons 1773 Copartnership, Debt, Aliment, Arrestment, Sequestration, Bankruptcy This case involved a copartnery formed by members of the Alexander family and members of the Gordon family. The purpose of the copartnery was to manufacture dye using a method developed by George Gordon. After pursuing this business for a number of years, the Alexanders alleged that they had become substantial creditors of the copartnery. Accordingly, the Alexanders brought actions in Scottish court and eventually obtained a writ from the Court of King’s Bench in England. They also sought to dissolve the copartnery. In response, the Gordons raised an action for damages incurred as a result of the allegedly illegal proceedings instigated by the Alexanders; the Gordons also sought sums allegedly due to them in connection with the copartnery. As a result of this suit, the Gordons obtained an inhibition against the Alexanders. Robert and William Alexander petitioned the court to recall the inhibition, and later asked the court to sequester the assets of the copartnery.
Allan v. Surtees, Burdon, and Embleton 1806 Debt, Bankruptcy, Bill of Exchange, Sequestration, Prescription, Usury The executors of William Walker, Surtees, Burdon, and Embleton, pursued Robert Allan, a banker in Edinburgh, to recover statutory penalties for usurious transactions he had conducted with Sinclair and Williamson. Allan defended the action on the grounds that the claim was barred by prescription and failed to satisfy statutory requirements.
Andrew Gray and Others vs. David Wilson and Others 1790 Election contest, Election, Interlocutor, Adjudication, Aliment, Sequestration Andrew Gray and others pursued David Wilson and others regarding the contested election of magistrates and counsellors in Anstruther Easter, seeking to void the defenders' election and obtain a declaration that the pursuers were the lawfully chosen officers. The defenders maintained the validity of their election and the proper exercise of voting rights, while the parties disputed whether the presiding magistrate possessed an ordinary vote or merely a casting vote to be exercised only in cases of equality. The pursuers contended that the magistrate had no ordinary vote and could only break ties, whereas the defenders argued that Baillie Chalmers had no right to vote unless an equality of votes existed.
Andrew Heron v. Patrick Heron 1774 Debt, Arrestment, Sequestration, Inhibition, Process, Reduction Doctor Andrew Heron of Bargaly, pursuer, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor in his action against Patrick Heron, defender. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Andrew Ross and Others v. John Glasford and Company 1771 Charter Party, Sailor's Compensation, Ships, Sequestration, Aliment, Interlocutor In the summer 1759, Charger Andrew Ross and others were sailors aboard the Ingram, a ship owned by suspender John Glassford. The planned route was Clyde to Newfoundland, then to Spain, Portugal, or any port in the Mediterranean, and then back to Clyde. During its voyage from Lisbon, Portugal to Clyde, the ship was captured by a French privateer (the Belleisle privateer), commanded by Thurot. The sailors on the Ingram, including Ross, were dropped off in Carrickfergus in Northern Ireland. When the sailors finally returned to Glasgow, they applied for the wages due to them at their arrival in Lisbon. These wages would cover the voyage from Clyde to Newfoundland, and then to Lisbon. Glassford refused to pay the sailors' wages. Glassford maintained that sailors were not entitled to their wages when the ship is taken or wrecked in its homeward voyage. Ross et al. disagreed, and argued that it was a custom among merchants in many places to compensate sailors, even in a situation where the ship is taken.
Andrew v. Murdoch 1803 Wrongful imprisonment, Due process, Arrestment, Sequestration, Interlocutor, Wrongous Imprisonment The pursuer raised an action of wrongful imprisonment against the defender, Sheriff-Substitute, and challenged the interlocutor that ordered his incarceration. The pursuer argued that the defender violated the Act of 1701, by not giving a deliverance on the petition for bail within the required time, and also by not admitting the pursuer to bail when he was accused of a bailable offense. The purpose of the act was to protect people from oppressive acts by those entrusted with executive or ministerial authority.
Andrew Zuill v. Thomas Bryce Buchanan 1830 Sequestration, Interlocutor, Liferent, Rent, Reduction, Infeftment Andrew Zuill or Yool, farmer at Bridgend of Boquhan, raised an action of reduction against Thomas Bryce Buchanan to set aside sheriff's decrees and interlocutors obtained for unpaid farm rents and damages, alleging the proceedings were invalid and unlawful. Buchanan reclaimed against Lord Mackenzie's interlocutor and lodged defences asserting his heritable proprietorship and the validity of a liferent grant to William Gray. Zuill subsequently reclaimed, arguing that Buchanan possessed title to demand the rents during his possession of the subjects.
Archbishop of York, and Others v. Haldane 1769 Highways, Aliment, Arrestment, Succession, Property, Sequestration After purchasing the estate of Airthrey, Captain Robert Haldane sought to close a road that crossed the property. Residents and property owners in the parishes of Callender, Kincardine, Kilmadock, Dunblane, Leckropt, and Logie objected that the road was a necessary public highway that provided the most expedient route to coalfields in the vicinity of Alloa. The case materials refer to many locations in the affected countryside, describe the history of the road, and name numerous deponents who discussed their use of the road and other matters relevant to the case.
Archer v. Donaldson 1793 Debt, Cautioner, Poinding, Sequestration, Bankruptcy, Aliment Andrew Archer and Margaret Low petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor that had assoilzied them from a process of reduction. On the same day, David Guthrie, James Ker, and others, trustees for the creditors of William Fullarton, likewise petitioned the Court to alter the same interlocutor.
Archers and Others v. Magistrates of Edinburg 1797 Statute, Fraud, Act of Parliament, Sequestration, Trust, Tax James and Andrew Archers, John Hardy, and William Younger, brewers operating within the precincts of Holyroodhouse, pursued the magistrates of Edinburgh and Alexander Thomson to contest the legality of a two-penny duty imposed on ale brewed and consumed in the Abbey, maintaining that the magistrates lacked authority to levy the tax within that jurisdiction. The brewers claimed total exemption from the duty, which the chargers subsequently challenged as legally unsound and unjust.
Archibald Craig v. Emilia Brodie 1773 Succession, Debt, Adjudication, Aliment, Bill of Exchange, Sequestration Archibald Craig obtained a court order for payment of a debt owed to him by Emilia Brodie. After Emilia died, Craig sought to collect the funds from her daughter, Margaret Brodie, who had intromitted with the estate.
Archibald Douglas of Douglas v. Douglas, Duke of Hamilton 1778 Deed, Aliment, Succession, Liferent, Sequestration, Contract This case constitutes an appeal to the House of Lords and Court of Session regarding an infamous earlier case, dubbed "The Douglas Cause." That case, which was settled by the House of Lords in 1769, revolved around the contested inheritance of the vast wealth of the Duke of Douglas, who died in 1761. The heir-male to the Duke of Douglas, the Duke of Hamilton, contested the property claims of Archibald Douglas, the son of the Duke of Douglas' sister, from many angles. In this last-ditch appeal, brought before the Court of Session and House of Lords, the Duke of Hamilton asserted that a 1744 deed of revocation put forth by the late Duke of Douglas was in fact a settlement of succession that disinherited his sister, Lady Jane Douglas, from all properties that had been passed to the family through investiture. On December 19, 1778 the Court of Session found that the Duke of Hamilton had no claim under the deed of October 16th, 1744, declaring it a deed of revocation and not of settlement. On March 27, 1779 the House of Lords dismissed an appeal of the Duke of Hamilton. The memorials submitted to the Court of Session in October of 1778 contain a history of the Angus and Douglas families and their investitures, and an overview of similar cases to "The Douglas Cause."
Arrot v. Coulter 1792 Debt, Bankruptcy, Bill of Exchange, Sequestration, Assignation, Creditor Petition by William Coulter, trustee on the Sequestrated Estate of James Elder, objecting to an assignment by Mr. Elder to Messrs Mansfield, Ramsay, and Co., which attempted to convey certain goods sent by Mr. Elder to Mr. Thomas Brunton, Merchant in Kingston for consignment. Mr. Coulter objects on three grounds: 1. That Mr. Elder made the assignment solely to preference certain creditors, including his brother-in-law Mr. Quinn and his friend, Mr. Arrot, surgeon in Edinburgh; 2. that the conveyance was not completed as Mr. Elder never delivered the assignment to Messrs Mansfield, Ramsay, and Co.; and 3. No intimation (legal notice) of the assignation was delivered that was sufficient to divest the cedent and complete the right of the assignee in a competition with other creditors.

Summary of Facts:
In 1787, Mr. Elder obtained a Cash credit of 200 £ Sterling from Sir William Forbes, James Hunter, and Co., cautioned by Mr. Quinn/Quynne/Gwyn (his brother-in-law) and Mr. Arrot. All the money was spent.
On May 22, 1789, Mr. Elder drew upon Mr. Arrot a bill for 130 £ Sterling, which was accepted by Mr. Arrot. On May 23, Mr. Elder discounted the bill with Messrs Mansfield, Ramsay, and Co., Bankers in Edinburgh. The bill was endorsed by Mr. Andrew, writer in Edinburgh. Mr. Elder used this money to close out his cash account with Sir William Forbes and Co, the account closed on June 27, 1789. During this time, Mr. Elder wrote an assignment, dated May 22, 1789, conveying the proceeds of a parcel of goods currently held by Mr. Brunton for consignment to Messrs Mansfield, Ramsay, and Co. to satisfy the debt owed for the advancement of the bill. This assignment was never delivered, but remained with Mr. Elder.
On August 5, 1789, Mr. Elder called a meeting of his creditors. On October 7, 1789, the Sequestration was applied for and granted.
After the sequestration, on November 12, 1789, Mr. Coulter, trustee of the estate, received a letter from Messrs William Sibbald and Co., merchants in Leith, who possessed sugar and rum owned by Mr. Elder, remitted from Mr. Brunton. Mr. Arrot and Mr. Andrew, as writer and endorser respectively of Mr. Elder's debt to Messrs Mansfield, Ramsay and Co., made a claim of preference for the goods, suggesting that the assignment written by Mr. Elder conveyed these goods to Messrs Mansfield and Ramsay. The trustee, Mr. Coulter, denied these claims.
On November 29, 1791, Mr. Coulter filed a petition to the Lords of Council and Session, made by Mr. Coulter, Trustee. Lord Ordinary Henderland heard the petition on December 7, 1791, and rendered judgment for Mr. Arrot.
This appeal follows.
Bank of Scotland v. Chalmers 1796 Debt, Adjudication, Teind, Sequestration, Infeftment, Ranking and Sale The Bank of Scotland, pursuer, and William Ramsay reported on the state of debt and entitlements in the division of the estates of George Chalmers, defender. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Bayne v. Wallace 1796 Teinds, Disposition, Feu, Feu duties, Tack, Sequestration Alexander Bayne of Rires presented a reclaiming petition asking the Court to alter an interlocutor previously pronounced by Lord Craig. John Wallace of Sprettyhall and Rires Mill answered the petition as defender.
Belch [Belsh] v. Wilson and Son 1788 Arrestment, Creditor, Bill of Exchange, Forgery, Debt, Sequestration Peter Belsh, a merchant in Stirling, charged William Wilson and Son, merchants in Bannockburn, over a discounted bill involving indorsers. Wilson and Son suspended the charge and subsequently submitted an information contending that their subscription to the promissory note was a forgery and therefore void.
Bernard Love v. George Foster 1832 Arrestment, Sequestration, Rent, Caution, Aliment, Factor Bernard Love, as pursuer, lodged a reclaiming note against Lord Moncreiff's interlocutor in his action against George Foster, defender. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Briggs v. Stark and Balfour 1778 Hypothec, Arrestment, Debt, Rent, Sequestration, Creditor This case was about the effect of a landlord’s “hypothec,” which was a right to retain or recover the fruits of leased property as security for rent. David Peebles, a tenant, fell behind on rent that was due to his landlord, Janet Balfour. Balfour obtained a Sheriff’s decree to sequester Peebles’s crops; the order covered the current year’s rent, as well as past and future years. Defender Robert Stark, as sequestrator, auctioned off the crops and used the proceeds to compensate Balfour. However, John Briggs, another creditor of Peebles, challenged Balfour’s right to anything more than the current year’s rent. Stark and Balfour responded that the Sheriff’s decree entitled Balfour to any proceeds up to the amount of her entire claim. The Sheriff found no balance due by Stark to Peebles, and Briggs' arrestment was rendered useless. Briggs then submitted his case to the Court of Session by bill of advocation, and it came before Lord Alva. Alva ultimately repelled the reasons of advocation and Briggs petitioned the Court to alter this decision. Marginalia on the case documents indicates that the Court may have indeed altered Alva's decision.
Bruce and Selkrig v. Bruce and Others 1798 Debt, Adjudication, Entail, Succession, Sequestration, Teinds James Bruce and Charles Selkrig, Trustee, argued that the entail of Tillicoultry did not bar the sale of the estate to satisfy debts. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Buchannans v. Gray and Hall 1782 Sequestration, Debt, Cautioner, Succession, Creditor, Disposition Alexander and Jean Buchanan initiated a ranking and sale of land that had belonged to Robert Hall of Fulbar. The land was possessed by John Farquhar-Gray of Kilmardinny and Jean Hall, each of whom claimed to have a heritable security on the property. The Buchanans objected to these securities and raised a second process against Farquhar-Gray and Hall to challenge their claims. While the proceedings were pending, the Buchanans petitioned the court to sequestrate the land in question. Farquhar-Gray and Hall argued that it would be improper to sequestrate land that was already in their possession, and that the parties’ rights should be determined in the other proceedings.
Burt v. Lord Justice Clerk's Interlocutor 1789 Succession, Aliment, Debt, Creditor, Sequestration, Defamation Robert Burt petitioned the Court of Session to alter an interlocutor that the Court had pronounced against the Lord Justice Clerk. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Caddel & Creditors of Niblie v. Lord Dunsinnan's Interlocutor 1793 Debt, Bankruptcy, Aliment, Sequestration, Trustee, Contract of marriage Caddel and the creditors of Peter Niblie at Buxley petitioned the Court to alter Lord Dunsinnan's interlocutor sustaining Mrs Niblie's vote as a creditor entitled to elect a trustee. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Campbell v. Easterby 1797 Arrestment, Debt, Sequestration, Creditor, Reduction, Interlocutor James Campbell petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor regarding an arrested vessel, and George Easterby answered, arguing that Campbell’s bond of caution did not conform to the Admiral’s interlocutor and that the arrestment had caused no diminution in the ship’s value. The dispute thus turned on the sufficiency of the security offered and the effect of the seizure upon the vessel’s valuation.
Campbell v. Laidlaw 1796 Debt, Creditor, Bill of Exchange, Sequestration, Partnership, Interlocutor Robert Campbell, as pursuer, petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor suspending his charge for a bill of exchange he had accepted without value in the action against Laidlaw, the defender. Robert Corbet thereafter informed the Court that the bill had been accepted for the accommodation of Archibald M'Ausland rather than Milligan and Co.
Carnegie v. Turnbull 1796 Freeholder, Election contest, Aliment, Sequestration, Disposition, Freehold Qualification Carnegie complained of his removal from the roll of freeholders, arguing that he had departed the meeting before being called to take the trust oath and that no formal intimation had been given. Turnbull answered that Carnegie had been struck off for evading the oath after warning, and further asserted that Carnegie had divested himself of all land in the county prior to appearing at Forfar to assert a vote, thereby denying his qualification.
Chalmers, Leslie, & Seton v. Creditors of George Chalmers 1778 Debt, Adjudication, Ranking of Creditors, Sequestration, Trustee, Creditor The partnership of Chalmers, Leslie, and Seton sought to be ranked on the estate of George Chalmers of Pittencrieff. Several of Chalmers’s creditors objected on the ground that the firm’s creditors were already ranked.
Chisholm v. Lord Gardenston's Interlocutor 1791 Aliment, Heritor, Contract, Tack, Adjudication, Sequestration William Chisholm petitioned the Court to alter Lord Gardenston's interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Clark v. Bell 1802 Statute of limitations, Literary Property, Copyright, Adjudication, Sale, Sequestration Andrew Bell, an engraver, included pages from James Clark's book in the Encyclopedia Britannica without permission. James Clark claimed that he had the copyright to the information, but Bell argued that the statute of limitations had expired on the claim. The case had originally been heard by a Lord Ordinary who had required Bell to return the pages to Clark. However, Bell appealed the statute of limitations issue to the higher court, which agreed with him that it was possible Clark's claim to the material had expired. As a result, the case was remanded to the Lord Ordinary to reconsider the penalty he had imposed requiring Bell to return the pages to Clark.

Note: Clark is indexed as "Clerk" in the digest.
Coalston v. Stewart 1770 Debt, Bankruptcy, Sequestration, Jurisdiction, Interlocutor, Promissory note Pursuer Jean Coalston and her husband Patrick Walker petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Cockburn v. Partners of Douglas, Heron & Co 1780 Copartnership, Debt, Sequestration, Mala Fides, Bankruptcy, Aliment This case was about liability for a share of the failed partnership of Douglas, Heron, and Company. The pursuers, a group of the company’s partners, alleged that the disputed share belonged to Archibald Cockburn of Cockpen, who was both a stockholder and a director of the company. Cockburn claimed that he had acquired the share on behalf of the company, as part of an effort to prop up its stock price. However, the partners argued that as a director, Cockburn did not have the power to make such a purchase, and that even if he did, that power was not exercised properly.
Copland v. Ireland 1786 Proof, Interlocutor, Tack, Diligence, Rent, Sequestration William Ireland petitioned the Court for leave to adduce additional proof and to renew diligence against William Birtwhistle, alleging that William Copland of Gregory had failed to report proof regarding Birtwhistle. Copland answered, responding to the claim that he had neglected to report the proof concerning Birtwhistle.
Countess of Loudon, and Others v. The Trustees on the High Roads in Ayrshire 1792 Jurisdiction, Trustees, Appeal, Sequestration, Act of Parliament, Adjudication The Countess of Loudoun and others pursued the Trustees on the High Roads in Ayrshire regarding the proposed suppression of the road by Crawfordland-bridge, while the Trustees and associated justices of the peace defended the road's continued operation. The Trustees initially challenged the Court's jurisdiction to review their proceedings, then argued in subsequent pleadings that the road served public convenience and must be kept open. The parties exchanged answers, replies, and duplies contesting both the Court's authority to intervene and whether the road should remain open or be suppressed.
Cowan v. Farie and Others 1781 Sequestration, Debt, Creditor, Bill of Exchange, Arrestment, Interdiction Robert Cowan and Company, creditors on a bill accepted by John Farie, sought to have Farie’s movable effects sequestrated. Cowan & Co. argued that sequestration was appropriate when a debtor’s movable estate was the subject of a poinding or when the debtor was imprisoned; both criteria applied to Farie. The respondents opposed sequestration on several grounds, including the following: (1) Farie received no value for the bill; (2) Farie was under interdiction when he accepted the bill; and (3) Farie’s movable estate was exhausted by higher-ranked creditors. When the case was argued, the parties agreed to suspend the proceeding while the respondents found caution for Farie’s debt. However, after a dispute about the form of the caution, Cowan & Co. submitted a second petition for sequestration and expenses.
Craig v. Anderson 1776 Trustees, Debt, Sequestration, Trustee, Inhibition, Oath Joseph Heatly was an engineer who became insolvent before he could complete a projected coal-work outside of Glasgow. His estate being sequestered. His trustees put Heatly's funds and their own private capital into completing this coal work, projecting that the profits from the venture would more than pay back Heatly's debts and the expenses of its founding. John Anderson, one of Heatly's creditors, believed the trustees had neither the background nor the aptitude to manage a coal-work, and did not expect that this undertaking would result in him receiving the debt owed to him. He brought a summons and executed an inhibition against the trustees. In response the trustees petitioned the Court to have this inhibition suspended. Lord Kennet granted a sist (judicial stay) on the inhibition, "till the bill and answers should be advised." Because of this sist the inhibition was not recorded or executed within forty days, but the trustees feared that Anderson would file another one. They petitioned the Court to rule that Anderson could not execute an inhibition against the trustees of Heatly's estate. The Court dismissed this petition.
Creditors of Jackson and Esten v. Kemble (Two Folders) 1793 Patent, Creditor, Sequestration, Interdict, Trust, Lease The creditors of Jackson and Esten petitioned for possession of the Edinburgh Theatre in order to manage the property under a disputed patent held by Mrs Esten. Kemble, defending as lessee and trustee of the Theatre Royal, resisted the grant of an interdict against his possession, asserting his lawful title and the public interest and arguing that the Court ought first to investigate the validity of Mrs Esten's patent claim before removing him from the theatre.
Creditors of John Horn 1791 Sequestration, Creditor, Trustee, Adjudication, Interlocutor, Statute George Wilson, trustee for the creditors of John Horn, petitioned to alter an interlocutor allowing individual creditors to adjudicate post-sequestration, citing statutory prohibition and the risk of confusion or penalty preference. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Creditors of Sir James Carnegie v. David Carnegie 1780 Rent, Lease, Sequestration, Possession, Trustees, Tack Sir David Carnegie petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor in the action brought by the creditors of Sir James Carnegie against him. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Cunynghame and Gray v. Whitefoord 1796 Succession, Sequestration, Reduction, Aliment, Arrestment, Possession Francis Cunynghame, Esquire, and Gray pursued Sir John Whitefoord, Baronet, seeking sequestration of the estate of Dunduff and an order remitting to Lord Dreghorn Ordinary to name a factor. Whitefoord answered, arguing that Cunynghame had no legal claim to the estate and that sequestration was inappropriate given the defender's lawful possession and feudal titles. The dispute thus turned on whether sequestration should be granted in the face of competing assertions of right and possession.
Curtis, et al. v. Chippendale 1794 Bankruptcy, Debt, Sequestration, Creditor, Compensation, Bill of Exchange William Curtis, Ebenezer Maitland, and John Newman Caussmaker petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor regarding Edward Chippendale's claim as trustee on the sequestrated estate of William Macalpin and Company. The parties disputed whether Scottish law on compensation ought to be altered to conform to English practice, with the respondent defending the established Scottish doctrine and the petitioners arguing that Chippendale's claim was not well founded under that law.
David Clyne v. James Trail and David Hendersson, (Williamson's Trustees) 1830 Debt, Arrestment, Creditor, Assignation, Trustee, Sequestration David Clyne raised a summons of forthcoming against James Traill, trustee for the creditors of the late Lieutenant-Colonel Benjamin Williamson, and David Henderson, factor, to recover funds held in trust for Kenneth Fraser. Traill and Henderson defended the action on the ground that they were not in possession of the funds at the time of the arrestment. They subsequently lodged a reclaiming note asking the Court to alter the interlocutor of which they complained.
Donald McDonald v. His Creditors 1780 Debt, Bankruptcy, Aliment, Sequestration, Arrestment, Creditor Documents are available. Full description in progress.
Douglas v. Lord Justice Clerk's Interlocutor 1788 Debt, Arrestment, Bill of Exchange, Sequestration, Prescription, Interlocutor William Douglas of Luss, Esquire petitioned the Court of Session to alter a recent interlocutor pronounced by the Lord Justice Clerk. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Douglas, Heron, & Company v. William Riddick 1791 Debt, Arrestment, Cautioner, Creditor, Prescription, Sequestration William Riddick, as defender, petitioned the Court to alter Lord Dreghorn’s interlocutor against him at the instance of Douglas, Heron, & Company, arguing that the bond in question fell under the septennial limitation for cautionary engagements and that the decree lacked valid diligence. The respondents answered, asserting that the bond was not for immediate debt and that Riddick was barred from the benefit of the limitation by dolo. Riddick thereafter petitioned the Inner House to overturn its interlocutor on the ground that the cautionary obligation was subject to the septennial limitation.
Dover v. Forsyth 1784 Property, Sale, Debt, Bankruptcy, Sequestration, Possession Agnes Dover, pursuer, alleged that she had made a verbal agreement with Thomas Forsyth regarding a parcel in the village of Glenluce. Under this agreement, Dover would transfer her right to the parcel in exchange for a sale price and payment of a feu duty associated with the property. According to Dover, Forsyth paid part of the sale price and began building a house on the parcel, but he became bankrupt before the house was completed; Forsyth failed to pay the balance of the price or the feu duty. Dover sued Forsyth to recover either the money Forsyth allegedly owed her or, in the alternative, possession of the parcel. In response, the factor on Forsyth’s sequestrated estate argued that Dover should be required to pay for the improvements Forsyth made to the property.
Dr. John Roebuck, and Samuel Garbet v. William and Andrew Stirling 1772 Patent, Privilege, Sequestration, Improvement, Assignment, Interlocutor Roebuck and Garbet, pursuers, claimed that they obtained a patent in 1771 for a process that produced sulfuric acid in vessels of lead, instead of in vessels of glass. The patent allegedly gave Roebuck and Garbet the exclusive privilege of using this process in Great Britain for fourteen years. Roebuck and Garbet claimed that William and Andrew Stirling were constructing buildings in Glasgow for the purpose of using Roebuck and Garbet's patented process. Roebuck and Garbet applied for a bill of suspension, but Lord Hailes found no patent transgression in the construction of the buildings. Roebuck and Garbet applied for a second bill of suspension, but the court did not prohibit the Stirlings from producing sulfuric acid in vessels of lead while the case was pending. Because their patent only lasts fourteen years, Roebuck and Garbet sought to stop the Stirlings' activity immediately. They argued that the continued activity of the Stirlings causes Roebuck and Garbet material loss and rendered their patent ineffective.
Drew v. Calder 1778 Bill (Financial Instrument), Credit, Debt, Aliment, Bill of Exchange, Sequestration Thomas Calder died owing money to his brother-in-law, Charles Drew, and to Drew's brother, Robert. When Charles Drew went bankrupt, Robert Drew pursued John Calder of Davidstoun, brother of the late Thomas Calder, for sums owed. Lord Monboddo, the Lord Ordinary, ruled that John Calder was indeed liable for his brother's share of the debts, but Calder petitioned the Court of Session contesting this decision. He argued that the various bills granted by Thomas Calder to the Drew brothers were not for value received. Rather, he argued that these bills represented lines of credit that were never spent. Robert Drew answered that the bills were clearly given for value received, and that John Calder was merely trying to draw out the litigation process in order to postpone settling his brother's debts.

Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 2528)