Windsor from Datchet Lane, London, 1780 []

Related Cases

Case Date Legal Subjects Abstract
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.
Samuel Cole, &c v. Ephraim Flamare, &c 4 Aug 1772 Samuel Cole, pursuer, was a silk-weaver based in London. Some of his silk (worth £3,000 Sterling) was stored in a warehouse in Canongate, a district of Edinburgh. Cole declared bankruptcy. Shortly after this, Flammare, defender and creditor of Cole, went to Edinburgh to seize Cole's silk in Canongate by using an admiral-precept. William Cole, brother and creditor of Samuel Cole, along with other creditors of Samuel Cole, also took out an admiral-precept on Samuel Cole's effects in Edinburgh. These other creditors sought an equal distribution of Cole's property among the creditors. Flammare alleged, among other procedural defects, that the other creditors' application for sequestration was ineffective under the applicable bankruptcy statute because the case involved an English, not Scottish, debtor.
Tyson v. Scott 1770 Trust 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.
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.
James Coutts v. Sir Francis Blake 17 Feb 1775 This case addressed the court's jurisdiction to resolve a dispute over fishing rights in the river Tweed, where that river forms the border between Scotland and England. Pursuer James Coutts claimed that defender Sir Francis Blake of Twizell, who possessed a fishing right on the English side of the Tweed, had demolished a portion of Coutts’s dam, causing severe harm to his fishery. Blake claimed that the alleged demolition site was on the English side of the border, and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the Scottish courts. Many local residents are mentioned in case documents.
Glover and Others v. Vasie 7 Aug 1776 Commission of Bankruptcy In England, Assignees In 1770, John Bedford and Son, Leeds merchants, went bankrupt. One of their English creditors, Martin Fenwick, laid arrestments (judicial security) upon Colin Maclaren, a Scottish debtor of Bedford and Son. Fenwick recovered what he was owed, and then a second English creditor of Bedford and Son, Robert Vasie, laid an arrestment upon the remainder of MacLaren's debt. Vasie had previously received a dividend under an English commission of bankruptcy. During the process, Lord Hailes gave preference to Vasie. Benjamin Glover and other assignees of Bedford and Son objected to this preference on account of the dividend Vasie possessed. They also argued that as an Englishman Vasie could not compete with their claim upon Bedford and Son’s Scottish effects. Vasie, in turn, argued that the pursuers, having been made assignees by an English commission of bankruptcy, had no right of action in Scotland. The Court ruled that Messrs. Glover, etc. had a right of action to recover Bedford and Son's Scottish effects, and barred Vasie from competing.
Blands v. Ewing and Company, and Dinwiddie 25 Jul 1777 Debtor and Creditor, England, Promissory Note This case was about the liability of individuals who endorsed a dishonored promissory note. Walter Ewing and Company purchased the note from Robert Dinwiddie, a bank cashier, and remitted it to Bland and Company in England. After the note’s maker, William Mowat, failed to pay, Bland and Company sued Robert Dinwiddie and Ewing and Company, both of whom had earlier endorsed the note. The defenders claimed that they could not be held liable because Bland and Company did not properly notify them that the note had been dishonoured. The cause came before Lord Monboddo, who assoilzied (absolved) the defenders. Bland and Company then submitted a petition to the Court asking them to overturn this decision. The Court adhered to Monboddo's interlocutor.
Hamilton v. Hamilton's Creditors 1778 Ranking and Sale, Process, Adjudication In 1761, George Hamilton inherited Easter-Queenslie and Provanhall from his brother, Robert, along with some heavy debts. Hamilton later accumulated additional debts, and his other brother, John, acted as cautioner for many of them. In 1769, George Hamilton executed an absolute disposition in favor John over the Wester-Mailing of Easter-Queenslie, as security over the aforementioned debts. Over the years George Hamilton granted other wadsets to his creditors over other parts of his estate. By 1773, he had gone bankrupt, and the Court sequestrated the rents of his lands. George's brother, John, petitioned the Court to strike the Wester-Mailing of Easter-Queenslie from the estate sale, given the disposition held by him. The other creditors of George Hamilton objected to this petition, arguing that Hamilton's disposition, being in fact a security, did not endow him with preferable ranking. Furthermore, they argued that because Hamilton had received a confirmation of his interest only in 1776, after the ranking of the sale had begun, his confirmation was null and void. To this John Hamilton responded that regardless of the details of his disposition, "at all events he has security on the lands, and it is a matter of no great importance to him whether he be considered as real proprietor under the [aforesaid] personal obligation, or a preferable creditor." Handwritten marginalia indicates that the Court repelled the objections.
Ramage v. Charteris 19 Jul 1782 Mrs. Jean Charteris, a Scottish merchant, was engaged in trade with Joseph Ramage, a merchant in York. Ramage furnished articles of thread manufacture to Charteris, and Charteris paid him either in cash or in goods. In 1780, Ramage raised an action against Charteris for a balance that was allegedly due on her account. The account showed that Ramage had last furnished an article to Charteris in 1776, but Charteris had furnished goods to Ramage within the last three years. Charteris argued that the case was barred by the triennial prescription (i.e., the statute of limitations). Ramage responded that the prescription would not become effective until three years passed with no furnishing by either party.
Alexanders vs. Gordons 1774 Copartnership 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.