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 >> James Robertson Barclay and Others v William Lennox of Woodhead. [1783] Hailes 930 (19 November 1783) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1783/Hailes020930-0604.html Cite as: [1783] Hailes 930 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
[1783] Hailes 930
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR DAVID DALRYMPLE, LORD HAILES.
Subject_2 BANKRUPT.
Subject_3 Infeftment is reducible under the Act 1696, though the warrant be anterior to the right of the creditor challenging.
Date: James Robertson Barclay and Others
v.
William Lennox of Woodhead
19 November 1783 Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
[Faculty Collection, IX. 195; Dictionary, 1151.]
Justice-Clerk. The law would be set loose were such excuses received. The judgment of the House of Peers, in the case of Erskine, proceeded on this principle, that an insolvent person ought not to be allowed to give partial preferences; and the other alternatives ought to be liberally interpreted.
Braxfield. We ought not to be too critical in interpreting this act, for it has no effect unless there be a bankruptcy.
On the 19th November 1783, “The Lords found sufficient evidence that Mr Robertson had absconded, and fell under the description of the Act 1696;” and therefore sustained the objection.
Act. C. Hay. Alt. Ilay Campbell. Reporter, Ankerville.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting
