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 >>
Representatives of Mr David Couper. v The other Creditors of Skelbo. [1752] Mor 267 (9 July 1752)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1752/Mor0100267-038.html Cite as:
[1752] Mor 267
Subject_1 ADJUDICATION and APPRISING. Subject_2 RANKING of ADJUDGERS and APPRISERS.
Representatives of Mr David Couper v. The other Creditors of Skelbo
Date: 9 July 1752 Case No. No 38.
An adjudication postponed, because executed before the days of special charge were elapsed.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In the ranking of the creditors of Skelbo, it was objected to Couper's adjudication, that the summons of adjudication was executed before the days of special charge were elapsed, and therefore not regular. The Lord Ordinary “sustained the objection relevant to postpone the said adjudication to such adjudications as were regularly led upon special charges.”
Pleaded in a reclaiming petition for the representatives of Couper: The act of sederunt of the 18th February 1721, which prohibits the raising and executing any summons of adjudication within the days of special charge, seems only to relate to adjudications posterior in date to it; for, that the act 106, Part. 7. Ja. V. till explained by the act of sederunt, was not clear as to this point. It does not say, that the days of special charge must be expired before letters of apprising can be directed, but only, That letters shall he directed, charging to enter within forty days next after the charge, and failing thereof, letters shall be directed to apprise: Which words might have been thus interpreted, That after a charge to enter heir, letters might be immediately directed to apprise; which, however, could only be carried into execution, if the person charged should fail to enter within the forty days: Nor is this more inconsistent with the nature of the thing, than is that daily practice which makes the days of a general charge, and the days of the annus deliberandi, to run on together.
‘The Lords refused the petition without answers, and adhered.’
Pet. D. Greme.
Fol. Dic. v. 3. p. 14. Fac. Col. No 27. p. 47.
