AI-transcribed

Signifies both executor and administrator. One who would in England be called executor, is in Scotland called executor nominate. An administrator is called executor dative. In default of confirmation as executor by any one else, a creditor may be confirmed to the extent of obtaining payment of his debt, and is then called executor creditor. An executor is bound to pay debts and legacies six months after the death. The word executors used generally signifies next of kin. EXECUTRY. Personal estate of a person deceased.

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: Executor

Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
Brebner v. Brebner 1767 Arrestment, Cautioner, Aliment, Executor, Suspension, Debt Helen Brebner, as executor for her deceased husband, gave her brother, Alexander Brebner, use of select estate funds. Helen won an action to retrieve this money from Alexander, and he challenged this judgment. Helen's husband, James Frigge, died in 1756, after naming Helen executor of his considerable finances, which consisted mainly of bills and bonds. When Helen received money for payments of debts due to her former husband, she allowed her brother Alexander use of these funds. Helen claimed that she put the money in Alexander's hands after he advised her that allowing him to invest the money in trade would increase the funds. Helen argued that as Alexander's credit declined and as he fell into debt, she sought to get back the money, which he refused. Alexander claimed, alternatively, that Helen had put the money in his hands for security as she drew on him for funds as needed. Eventually, Alexander argued, he became dissatisfied with Helen's management of the finances and refused to allow Helen any additional money. Alexander offered Alexander Ogilvie of Culvie as his cautioner, to which Helen did not consent based on the state of his finances.
Elizabeth Wallace v. William Gordon and Others 1766 Succession, Deed, Executor, Debt, Aliment, Trustees Janet Buchanan executed a settlement that made her niece Grizel Gordon the residuary beneficiary of her estate. The settlement provided that if Grizel died before marrying, the substitute beneficiary would be Elizabeth Wallace, Buchanan’s first cousin once removed. Buchanan died in 1762, and Grizel took possession of her effects, including a bond granted by Robert Dundas, Lord President of the Court of Session, for £200 Sterling. In 1763, Grizel discharged the £200 bond and lent the same amount to Charles Dundas, Robert’s brother; for the second loan, Charles and Robert gave their joint bond. After Grizel died, a dispute arose between Elizabeth Wallace and Grizel’s half-siblings, children of Robert Gordon, over who should succeed to the estate. The Gordon siblings claimed that language in the second bond, making it payable to Grizel, “her heirs, executors, and assignees,” altered the substitution in their favor. According to marginalia on the case documents, the court preferred Elizabeth Wallace.
Hawkins and Bruce v. Hamilton 1789 Succession, Debt, Trust, Executor, Aliment, Reduction Hawkins and Bruce raised an action against Archibald Hamilton, writer in Hamilton, as executor, seeking to hold him liable for his intromissions with the testator's estate. The defender argued that he was not liable for intromissions made beyond his lawful authority under the will. After an Inner-House interlocutor found him liable for his intromissions with the pursuers' funds, he presented a reclaiming petition asking the Court to alter that finding.
Jacobina Macfarlane v. Alexander, Richard and Janet Spence 1770 Contract of marriage, Succession, Liferent, Aliment, Executor, Creditor Archibald Marcfarlane married Elizabeth Spence as a result of a contract entered into between both spouses and Elizabeth's father William Spence. Archibald Macfarlane became bound to provide for his wife and future children. Archibald Marcfarlane made a further settlement of his estate, with a disposition in favor of his wife and children, and failing of them, to the petitioner Jacobina Macfarlane, his only sister. When Archibald Macfarlane died, Elizabeth Spence, his widow, took the whole of her husband's writs into her possession. When Elizabeth Spence died, Jacobina Macfarlane, pursuer, claimed that by Spence's death the right of succession devolved upon her. However, Elizabeth's brothers and sister, Alexander, Richard and Janet Spence, seized the writs and confirmed themselves executors. Thus, the pursuer claimed her right to be the heir of her brother and alleged that defenders have no foundation to alter the effects of her brother's disposition.
John Davidson v. Alexander Kyde, and Others 1797 Decreet-Arbitral, Succession, Trustee, Arrestment, Executor, Will John Davidson, Esquire, trustee for Rachael Lindsay, spouse of Major James Dickson in the East India Company's service, and for his own interest, petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Stonefield. Major Alexander Kyde answered the petition. Robert Strang, Andrew Lennox, and James Alexander, in company, subsequently petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor.
Macdonald v. Macarthur 1791 Debt, Succession, Executor, Aliment, Next of Kin, Heritor D. Macdonald, as executor qua nearest of kin, argued that he held a clear right to recover from Captain Neil Macarthur the balance of a debt due to the estate. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Mackenzie v. Mackenzie 1797 Debt, Aliment, Succession, Executor, Factor, Reduction Sir Hector Mackenzie of Gairloch, Baronet, pursued Alexander Kenneth Mackenzie regarding a conveyance of provision, which Alexander Kenneth defended as void for lack of requisite curator consent. Both parties successively petitioned the Court to alter interlocutors entered against them, with Sir Hector insisting that payment by his factor Norman Mackenzie was valid and not reducible. The dispute thus turned on whether the conveyance was effective without curator approval and whether the factor’s payment could stand.
Marion Kilpatrick v. John Macalpine 1792 Intromission, Trustee, Debt, Executor, Factor, Succession
Russell v. Lefroy, and Others 1785 Heritable and Moveable, Debt, Adjudication, Succession, Ranking of Creditors, Executor This case was initiated to determine who should receive certain debts in the possession of John Russell, a factor for George Thomson. After Thomson died, the heir to his heritable estate and the legatees of his personal property both claimed to be entitled to the debts. Their dispute turned on whether the debts were personal or heritable obligations.
Sinclair & Pringle v. Smith, et al 1797 Debt, Succession, Aliment, Executor, Disposition, Heritor Sir John Sinclair of Ulster and Alexander Pringle pursued Fraser Smith, Christian and Jacobina Smith, Peter Sinclair, and George Brock for proportional relief from annuity payments secured upon the pursuers' heritable subjects. The defenders, claiming status as legatees under Captain Allan's 1764 deed, argued that they were not liable for the annuity payments, while the pursuers maintained that the defenders were bound to relieve them proportionally from that burden.
Sir Alexander Mackenzie of Gairloch v. Hector Mackenzie and His Tutor 1768 Debt, Factor, Assignation, Executor, Reduction, Disposition
Steel v. Earl of Home 1764 Debt, Prescription, Adjudication, Succession, Creditor, Executor Janet Steel, relict of George Harvie Burgess, pursued Alexander Earl of Home for payment of a 3000 Merks bond and petitioned to overturn an interlocutor finding the debt prescribed, arguing the bond was moveable and that title had validly vested through Richard Alcorn’s executorship. The Earl answered, disputing the prescription finding and asserting that the decrees of cognitionis causa and adjudication upon which Steel relied were void and null. Both parties subsequently petitioned the Court to alter interlocutors, exchanging answers regarding the validity of the underlying instruments and the prescriptive status of the debt.
The Earl of Fife v. Mrs Martha M'Kenzie and Elizabeth Fraser 1795 Succession, Aliment, Disposition, Debt, Executor, Creditor The Earl of Fife pursued Mrs Martha M'Kenzie and Elizabeth Fraser, as executors of the deceased Alexander Udny of Udny, to enforce postnuptial settlements executed in 1769 whereby the Earl claimed succession to Mrs Udny's heritable estates, moveable goods, and annuities. The defenders challenged the validity of the deeds and claimed the estate's rents and assets. Following an interlocutor issued in May 1795, both parties petitioned the Court to alter that determination.
Tyson v. Scott 1770 Trust, Debt, Succession, Legacy, Executor, Power of Attorney 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.
William Lenox and Others v. Robert Grant 1784 Debt, Adjudication, Succession, Ranking of Creditors, Confirmation, Executor Robert Grant, defender, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor in the action raised against him by William Lenox and others. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Yorkston, et al. v. Grieve 1794 Deed, Witness, Testament, Succession, Assignation, Executor Yorkston and his co-petitioners pursued Grieve concerning the validity of a testamentary deed executed by the illiterate Jean Ferguson. They argued that the instrument was valid despite the notary’s docquet failing to record that it was read over to the testatrix, whereas Grieve maintained that because Ferguson could neither read nor write, the deed required to be read to her before she authorized the notary’s signature, and was void for want of that formality.

Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 272)