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 >> White v. Grieve. (Ante, vol. iv, p. 156) [1867] ScotLR 5_448 (3 April 1867) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1867/05SLR0448.html Cite as: [1867] SLR 5_448, [1867] ScotLR 5_448 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 448↓
(Before Lord President.)
(Ante, vol. iv, p. 156).
Verdict for pursuer.
In this case the pursuer was Peter White, accountant in Glasgow, trustee on the sequestrated estates of John Reid junior & Company, merchants in Glasgow, and of John Reid junior and David Walker, both merchants there, the individual partners of said company, as such partners, and as individuals, in room and place of the deceased Andrew MacEwan, accountant in Glasgow, formerly trustee on the sequestrated estates; and the defender was Walter Grieve, merchant in Greenock. The issue submitted to the jury was in the following terms:—
“It being admitted that, on the 30th December 1864, the estates of John Reid junior & Company, merchants in Glasgow, were sequestrated, and that the pursuer is trustee on said estates:
Whether on or about the 13th December 1864, and within sixty days of said sequestration, the said John Reid jun. & Company, in violation of the Statute 1696, c. 5, wrongfully transferred a bill of lading of a cargo of sugar, consisting of 1503 bags or thereby channel brown sugar, and 1700 bags or thereby American brown sugar, and the said cargo, to the defender, in satisfaction of a prior debt due to him, in preference to their other creditors? And, whether the defender is indebted and resting-owing to the pursuer in the sum of £4114, 5s. 8d., or any part thereof, as the value of the said sugars, with interest thereon from 13th December 1864?”
Solicitor-General (Millar) and A. Moncrieff for pursuer.
Clark and Gifford for defender.
The jury, after a short absence, returned a unanimous verdict, finding for the pursuer, and assessing damages at £3496, 18s. 8d.
Solicitors: Agents for Pursuer— Wilson, Burn & Gloag, W.S.
Agents for Defender— M'Ewen & Carment, W.S.