[]

Related Cases

Case Date Legal Subjects Abstract
William Richardson v. Martin Fenwick 3 Mar 1772 Debt, Competition between Creditors William Richardson, pursuer, and Martin Fenwick, defender, both sought to collect on payments originally from John Bedford and Son, an English firm. Due to financial trouble, checks endorsed by John Bedford and Son could not be cashed. Instead, Richardson and Fenwick sought to collect from several Scottish firms that owed money to John Bedford and Son, such as Gibson and Balfour, Colin Mclaren and Samuel Patron. Under a "letter of arrestment ad jurisdictionem fundandam," a creditor could bring a foreign debtor's property under the jurisdiction of the Scottish court. In this case, the foreign debtor's property was debt. Fenwick used two arrestments in the hands of Gibson and Balfour, as debtors to Bedford and Son, to establish jurisdiction. He afterwards obtained a decree against Bedford and Son for payment and recourse. On the other hand, Richardson, upon the registered protest of his bill, had taken out letters of arrestment against Gibson and Balfour, and M'Laren and others, as debtors to Bedford and Son. Richardson and Fenwick disputed who had priority to these debts. Fenwick alleged that Richardson's procedure for authorizing letters of arrestment was irregular and therefore ineffective. Richardson disputed Fenwick's claim, and further argued that Fenwick incorrectly identified the debtor as Bedford and Son instead of John Bedford and Son.
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.
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.
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.
Dame Robina Pollock, Spouse to Sir Hugh Crawford, and Sir Hugh, for his Interest v. Mary Porterfield, Widow of John Lockhart of Lee 10 Mar 1779 Jurisdiction, Female Succession, England In 1708, an Act of Parliament was passed enabling Dorothy Luckyn and James Lockhart to sell some lands the former had inherited. Upon their deaths the money from the sale was held in trust on behalf of their young heir, John Lockhart. Rather than petition the Court of Chancery to remove the tailzie from the trust, Lockhart's trustee, Robina Lockhart, removed the money to Scotland and conveyed it to her pupil upon his coming of age. When John Lockhart died a number of decades later his unentailed estate passed to his wife, Mary. John Lockhart's niece and her husband then brought action against Mary Lockhart and other trust-disponees, claiming the above-mentioned money as heirs of entail. They argued that the money in question still remained entailed under English law. The defenders, on the other hand, argued that the trust-money, having been removed to Scotland and conveyed to Lockhart, was therefore a sum of money belonging to him. Furthermore, they argued that even if there had originally been a case against the trustee's actions, it was no longer viable due to the negative prescription. To support this second argument, the defenders cited the Court's decision on Boyd Porterfield of Porterfield v. Joanna, Margaret, and Lilias Porterfields. The Court of Session determined that the negative prescription had cut out the claim of the substitute heirs, and the House of Lords upheld this decision.
Abraham Delvalle, and Others v. The Creditors of the York-Buildings Company 9 Mar 1786 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.
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.