James Blyth, as agent for John Maberly and Company and as holder of funds belonging to the firm, raised an action of multiplepoinding against Maberly's assignees to require them to produce their rights to the fund in his custody, while simultaneously seeking suspension of a warrant of seizure obtained by the assignees from the English bankruptcy court. The assignees demanded delivery of the property, disputing interdicts and asserting exclusive bankruptcy jurisdiction over all assets, and subsequently argued that the multiplepoinding was incompetent and unnecessary because the question of possession was already properly raised under the bill of suspension. The dispute thus centered on the conflict between Scottish multiplepoinding procedure and English bankruptcy jurisdiction.AI-generated
Documents in this case (10)
- James Blyth v. John Maberly & Co. and Others — Summons, 5 Mar 1832March 5, 1832 Summons of Multiplepoinding and Exoneration by James Blyth, against John Maberly & Co. and others, requiring them to produce rights to a fund in his custody
- James Blyth v. Alexander Brymer Belcher, John Bannatyne, and Harry George Gordon — Bill, 7 Mar 1832March 7, 1832 Bill of Suspension by James Blyth, agent for John Maberly and Company, against Alexander Brymer Belcher, John Bannatyne, Harry George Gordon, and Thomas Layton, threatening execution of a warrant of seizur…
- James Blyth v. Alexander Brymer Belcher, John Bannatyne, and Harry George Gordon — Answers, 8 Mar 1832Maberly’s assignees demand delivery of his property held by Blyth, disputing interdicts and asserting exclusive bankruptcy jurisdiction over all assets.
- Alexander Brymer Belcher, John Bannatyne, and Harry George Gordon v. James Blyth — Petition, 13 Jun 1832June 13, 1832 Additional Appendix to Petition of Alexander Brymer Belcher, John Bannatyne, and Harry George Gordon, assignees of John Maberly, against James Blyth and others, detailing financial balances and charges.
- Alexander Brymer Belcher, John Bannatyne, and Henry George Gordon v. Commercial Bank of Scotland and National Bank of Scotland — Answers, 11 Jun 1832June 11, 1832 Answers by the Commercial Bank of Scotland and the National Bank of Scotland to the petition of Alexander Brymer Belcher and others, responding to the claim that interdicts be recalled and processes dismis…
- Alexander Brymer Belcher, John Bannatyne, and Harry George Gordon v. David Watson, Peter Brown and Company, Benjamin Solomon, Robert Wyllie, Cunningham and Hunter, and David Davidson and Company — Answers, 11 Jun 1832Respondents deny petitioners' claim, asserting funds were held under mistaken agency before bankruptcy and restitution is owed under Scots law.
- Belcher — Note, 19 Jun 1832June 19, 1832 Note of assignees and mandatories asking the Court to order the bill of suspension and petition to be put in the Summary Roll for advising, in so far as relates to claims by parties other than the National…
- James Blyth v. Maberly's Assignees — Defences, 26 Jun 1832June 26, 1832 Defences of Maberly's Assignees, arguing that the action of multiplepoinding is incompetent and unnecessary, as the question of possession is already properly raised under the bill of suspension and interd…
People & places in this case
People involved
- John Bannatyne — Party
- David Watson — Party
- Alexander Gordon, 4th Duke of Gordon — Party
- David Davidson — Party
- Robert Reid Cunningham, of Auchenharvie — Party
- James Donald — Advocate for Party
- Henry David Inglis — Advocate for Party
- Robert Forsyth, of Redhouse, Advocate — Advocate for Party
- John Duncan — Advocate for Party
- Hercules James Robertson — Advocate for Party
- James Wolfe Murray, Lord Cringletie — Lord Ordinary
