BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Creditors of Mr Paterson, Competing. [1738] 1 Elchies 104 (10 January 1738) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1738/Elchies010104-004.html Cite as: [1738] 1 Elchies 104 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
[1738] 1 Elchies 104
Subject_1 COMPETITION.
Creditors of Mr Paterson, Competing
1738 ,Jan. 10 .
Case No.No. 4.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
On report of Lord Newhall without naming parties, Whether on the statute 1696 anent notour bankrupts, the executing a caption and taking a bond of presentation was imprisonment to bring him within the description of the act? the Lords were divided, but on the vote found it was in law imprisonment.—N. B. I find Mr Paterson Prestonhall was the bankrupt.—9th July 1736.
The Lords, notwithstanding of the above decision in the case of Blackwoodhouse, adhered to the Ordinary's interlocutor, finding that Sir William Baird's heritable bond fell not under the act 1696, because Mr Paterson's right was only personal, and was effectually conveyed by the heritable bond and assignation without infeftment, as they found in the case of Colonel Charteris and Creditors of Blair,—for here was no complete real right competing with them; and they found that the infeftments given by Lord Royston in 1733 were not quarrellable in the acts 1621 or 1696, and these infeftments would have preferred them to any subsequent infeftment these other creditors could have got, as they got none.—21st June 1737.—Vide 22d July.
Adhered to the former interlocutor of the 21st June last, in so far as concerned the property held of Lord Royston, but found the petitioners preferable upon the superiority that was in Lord Prestonhall's person, which is agreeable to our last judgment in the case of Blackwoodhouse.—22d July 1737.—Vide 10th January 1738.
This case was decided 22d July 1737; and upon the reclaiming bill the question was concerning the superiority, in which Kilconquhar was infeft, Whether it is only a nominal right, that might be absorbed at pleasure by the annualrenters, or if it was what the petitioners called patrimonial? The Lords adhered to the former interlocutor, but found all the adjudgers within year and day preferable pari passu. (See Note of No. 9. voce Ranking and Sale.)
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting
