1787–1788
DebtCreditorReductionAssignationInterlocutorBankruptcyJohn Hay, trustee for the creditors of D. Loch, petitioned the Court of Session to alter Lord Rockville’s interlocutor, arguing that a 1770 assignation was void as a fraudulent preference under the 1696 Act because it was intimated after bankruptcy and constituted a fraud against Loch’s other creditors. James Thomson and the creditors of St Clair & Co. answered, contesting the validity of the translation and assignation under the statute. Hay petitioned again to alter the court’s interlocutor, maintaining that the assignation was an illegal preference.AI-generated
Documents in this case (3)
- Hay v. Thomson — Petition, 19 Dec 1787December 19, 1787 Petition of John Hay, Trustee for D. Loch's Creditors, asking the Court to alter Lord Rockville's interlocutor
- Hay v. Thomson — Answers, 15 Jan 1788Jan 15, 1788: James Thomson & creditors of StClair Co. answer John Hay’s petition challenging validity of 1696 Act translation & assignation.
- Hay v. Thomson — Petition, 8 Mar 1788John Hay, trustee for D. Loch’s creditors, petitions March 8, 1788, to alter court’s interlocutor, arguing 1770 assignation void as preference under 1696 Act due to post-bankruptcy intimation and fraud against other cre…
People & places in this case
People involved
- Robert Sinclair — Party
- David Loch — Party
- Robert Hope — Party
- James Hardie — Party
- William Ogilvie, of Chesters — Party
- Cornelius Elliot, W.S. — Advocate for Party
- John Pringle — Advocate for Party
- Alexander Gordon, Lord Rockville — Lord Ordinary
