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!
You are here:BAILII >>
Databases >>
Scottish Court of Session Decisions >>
James Nasmith v Sir Alexander Cockburn of Langton's Creditors. [1702] 4 Brn 523 (15 January 1702)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1702/Brn040523-0016.html
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR JOHN LAUDER OF FOUNTAINHALL. Subject_2 I sat in the Outer-House this week.
James Nasmith v. Sir Alexander Cockburn of Langton's Creditors
Date: 15 January 1702
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Mr James Nasmith of Dawick, advocate, gives in a petition, representing that he, being a considerable creditor to Sir Alexander Cockburn of Langton, had raised a process of sale of that estate; but George Lockhart of Carnwath, another creditor, having also raised a sale, the petitioner then lay by: but Lang-ton having transacted with Carnwath, his process ceased; so that the petitioner has now wakened his summons, and is ready to insist and prove the rental, which Langton, with much industry, has darkened; and this, being the joint interest of all the creditors, ought to be carried on upon the common expense, and not on the private charges of one single creditor; therefore craving that a sum of money, suitable to that exigency, may be advanced to him by the factor, for which he is willing to hold count.
The Lords considered, Though this used to be granted in all roups, yet here they remembered that there had been sundry modifications given already for carrying on this sale, and therefore it was hard to burden either the debtor or the creditors with new advances till they saw how the former was expended, or if it was yet extant in Carnwath's hands, ungiven out; and, if his sale expired, whether he, or his creditors, should be at the loss of that expense now terminated by his transaction; therefore they ordered that to be first tried.
