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 £5, 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!
You are here:BAILII >>
Databases >>
Scottish Court of Session Decisions >>
Thomas Grierson, v Messrs Douglas, Heron, and Company, and others. [1785] Mor 274 (22 November 1785)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1785/Mor0100274-044.html Cite as:
[1785] Mor 274
Subject_1 ADJUDICATION and APPRISING. Subject_2 RANKING of ADJUDGERS and APPRISERS.
Thomas Grierson, v. Messrs Douglas, Heron, and Company, and others
Date: 22 November 1785 Case No. No 44.
Adjudications, if within year and day, not affected by certification in the process of ranking and sale.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In the process of ranking of the creditors of Brown of Barharrow, it was, in behalf of Grierson,
Objected: That certain adjudications had been led, not only during the dependence of the action of sale, but even after decreet of certification had been pronounced and extracted; that, by this last particular, these adjudications were distinguished from those in the case of Massey against Smith, 12th July 1785, (Fac. Col. No 221. p. 347. see Litigious); and, upon that ground, that preference had been denied to several adjudging creditors on the estate of Riccartonholm, 25th January 1783, (No 42. supra.)
Answered: As it is easy for any adjudger to obtain decree of certification in a process of sale, within a much less time than a year posterior to his adjudication becoming effectual, he might, if the objection were good, exclude, at his pleasure, the benefit of the statute of 1661. In the case of Riccartonholm, the adjudication in question had not been deduced till after the year and day from the first effectual one was elapsed; so that there the statutory benefit was not affected.
The Lord Ordinary ‘repelled the objection;’ and
The Court adhered to that interlocutor.
Lord Ordinary, Braxfield.Act. A. Abercromby.Alt. C. Hay.Clerk, Home.
Fol. Dic. v. 3. p. 14. Fac. Col. No 237. p. 367.
