Sidebilder
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

mother's funeral, and contributed to the pursuer's sup- sessed at the time of her marriage, pp. 97, 8 Sec. 198. Laidport, but he made a bad use of the money.

The said Thomas M'Adam has for several years, and now supporting one of the pursuer's sons, who is a ior. Explained that the pursuer is a Sheriff-officer, has been within the last three years in good situa, in which he earned a large wage, but which tions be lost through his own misconduct. Explained that the pursuer is perfectly able to support himself by work, if he would conduct himself with propriety. defender, Thomas M'Adam, was always willing, and did support the pursuer, until he was unable to do ger in consequence of the smallness of his wages, of the pursuer abusing the money.

The record was closed on the summons and minute. hearing parties' procurators, the Sheriff-Substitute ounced the following Interlocutor:

[ocr errors]

law's case, supra, is referred to in support of the doctrine, and sanctions it. Lord Gillies, in particular, remarked, "If this on examination the language of the Judges in pronouncing, be a debt arising from a natural obligation; if it be a debt against her (the daughter), I conceive that her husband incurs the same liability as for the other debts of his wife, and that this does not depend upon the amount of effects which she possessed at the time of entering into the marriage"-(see also Spence v. Murray, 19th November, 1796; Dic. App. Aliment, 1). Then it is important to notice, that if a son-in-law father-in-law, there is imposed on the parent the obligation of is bound to contribute to the maintenance of his indigent supporting his daughter-in-law, when his son has become unable (Adam, 1st March, 1762; Dic. 398; Duncan, 17th February, 1810, F. C). So that there is in the view thus taken perfect reciprocity of natural obligation.

This Interlocutor was appealed, and after hearing parties' procurators, the Sheriff, Sir A. Alison

Finds that this is an action at the instance of the pursuer Having heard parties' procurators on the closed record, against his children for aliment, and the point brought up by the first preliminary defence, that all parties interested the present appeal is whether or not the son-in-law, defender, called-in respect the defenders do not state who is liable for the aliment of the pursuer, his father-in-law, on Lave been called-repels the second preliminary de- the ground that the son-in-law has married the pursuer's in respect the defender Young is sued as directly and daughter, who is liable in the aliment claimed, and so has inally liable in the aliment claimed, on the medium that curred liability for her debts: Finds that in the case of responsible for the debts and obligations of his spouse, M'Donald v. M'Donald, 20th June, 1846, it was found by the Sarah M'Adam or Young, and there is no incongruity Court that the husbands of daughters who brought their husen the conclusions and the proposition in the summons bands no separate estate were not liable for the aliment of the ich bability is rested; and, in regard to the third pre- father-in-law; and Dunlop, 1854, p. 38, lays down the law in defence: Finds, for the reasons expressed in the fol- the same way, though M'Glashan, p. 97, sect. 198, states the Note, that the defender Young may be bound to con- law in the opposite way: Finds, on the point now under reto the maintenance of the pursuer, his father-in-law, view that the case of M'Donald differs from this one in this sverments in the summons are established, therefore particular, that the sons-in-law were resident in England, and that preliminary defence, and reserves all questions of were called only for their interest, and decree, of course, could and on the merits, but before answer, allows parnot go forth against the husbands, as they were not subject to of of their respective averments, and to each a con- the jurisdiction of the Scotch Courts, and Lord Jeffrey expool, grants diligence at their instance against wit-pressly said that the Courts in England could alone decide on and havers, and commission to any of the depute-clerks their liability: Finds, therefore, that though there were obiter Court to take the depositions of havers, receive produc- dicta in M'Donald v. M‘Donald hostile to the liability of sonsretly exhibits, and to report forthwith, and appoints in-law, yet there was no decision pronounced on the point by s to be enrolled first Court day, that a diet may be the Court: Finds that there is a natural reciprocal obligation for said proof proceeding. on parents and children to aliment each other when either -The only important question which occurs in this falls into poverty; and that when a man marries he incurs a whether the defender Young, the pursuer's son-in- general liability for his wife's debts of every description: Finds able in the aliment claimed? The point thus raised that the opinions of the Court in the case of Laidlaw, 3d July, seem to have been directly or authoritatively decided. 1832, are in favour of this view, particularly that of Lord Gilputs it interrogatively, and refers to Laidlaw v. Laid- lies, though no express decision was given on it: Therefore adJuly, 1832. If a daughter marry, is her husband heres to the Interlocutor repelling the preliminary plea on that maintain her indigent parents? The point has been point, and of consent adheres also to the Interlocutor on the but not decided. Lord Balgray "thought the ques- proof allowed, and dismisses the appeal. ry nice one," and the Court agreed that it was "new" Act. J. L. LANG. Rp. 287). The defender referred the Sheriff-Subto Smith's Digest of the Poor Law, p. 131, in support defence. What that author says is this:-"Whether bound to maintain his mother-in-law is a point which er been judicially determined; but if the daughter had ate estate of her own, it may be safely assumed that and would not be made liable for what is not properly his wife contracted at birth, but an obligation emerg. me when she is incapable, stante matrimonio, of fulFor this doctrine Clanranald's case, 20th June, Best Cases 830, is cited. But on referring to the it will be found that the pursuer (Clanranald) had sons-in-law, who were resident in England, parties tion, only for their interest, and no decision as to their pronounced. On the authority of that case, howDunlop, in his Treatise on the Poor Law, states, -in-law are not bound to aliment their parents-in1854, p. 38, sec. 35. On the other hand, M'Glashan ark on Aliment, observes:-"Children are reciprod to support their paternal and maternal ascenThis obligation is equally incumbent on daughters able to perform it, and it makes no difference, in a daughter, that she is married, and that her husved nothing with her. It being a debt against her out of a natural obligation, her husband incurs the lity for it as for her other debts, and that liability depend upon the amount of effects which she pos

Alt. GORDON SMITH.

5TH FEBRUARY, 1863.

SHERIFF COURT, KIRKCUDBRIGHT. (MR STEWARD DUNDAR.)

JOHN WILSON v. JOHN SPRoat.

Interdict-Servitude.-In a possessory action for interdicting a novum opus on a property which had been used beyond seven years in its former condition, notwithstanding the nature of the title, interdict granted as craved until an action of declarator should be brought. IN 1861 the petitioner purchased from Mr D. H. Gordon, writer, Kirkcudbright, a dwelling-house and piece of garden ground, and the titles were in the usual terms. Mr Gordon was also proprietor of another house and garden, situated to the south of the former, which he sold to the defender. This last property is built close to the

gable of the petitioner's property; but underneath the defender's property there is a passage, used by foot passeugers and for barrows, giving access to the petitioner's garden ground, and the only access thereto. It was averred that this passage had been used by the tenants of the two dwelling-houses since the properties had been built, for time immemorial, at least for the last seven years; and the petitioner claimed the use of it, for foot and barrow, for access to his garden, as a part and pertinent of his house-at least he had right to its use under an "implied" servitude. In consequence of the defender commencing to build up the passage and make an excavation to the back of the houses, encroaching, as the pctitioner averred, upon his property, and thereby to stop up the passage or present access, by the petitioner and his tenants, to the garden ground, he presented this petition for interdict.

In his defences the defender stated that Mr Gordon had acquired both houses and ground under one title in 1838, and had continued to possess them together till Whitsunday, 1862, when he sold them separately to the pursuer and defender. The defender's property was described as bounded by the property of the pursuer, and was conveyed with "all right, title, and interest, which he, his predecessors, or authors, or heirs, and successors had or could pretend to said half of said subjects, or to any part of them in time coming." It was admitted that for several years the passage had been used by the tenant of the petitioner's house as an access to the garden, but whether he had done so without warrant, or under his lease, the defender did not know.

[ocr errors]

The petitioner pleaded-(1) No relevant defence having been stated, the petitioner is entitled to interdict as craved; (2) The passage, and the ground under the same, being the exclusive, or, at least, the pro indiviso property of the petitioner, he is entitled to interdict as craved; (3) The petitioner having at least a servitude of road by said passage, he is entitled to interdict as craved; (4) The passage being the only access to the petitioner's garden, the petitioner is entitled to interdict as craved.

The defender pleaded—(1) The statements in the condescendence are not relevant to support the prayer of the petition, so far as regards the passage in question; (2) The petitioner and respondent's property, having for forty years immediately preceding the date of the action been the undivided property of Mr Gordon or his predecessors, and possessed by his and their tenants, any use which such tenants might make of said passage is incapable of constituting a right of way or entrance through the same in favour of the petitioner, to the prejudice of the respondent, who has acquired right to the property in which said passage exists; (3) The passage in question being within the respondent's exclusive property, and the petitioner having no right of way or entrance through the same, the interdict granted ought therefore, so far as regards said passage, to be recalled; (4) As the respondent's property extends to the centre line of the gable wall between it and the petitioner's property, the interdict granted, so far as it relates to the respondent's operations within said centre line, ought to

be recalled.

The record having been closed, and parties' procura

tors heard thereon, the Steward-Substitute pronounce the following Interlocutor:

Having heard parties' procurators on the pleas maintai in the record, before answer as to the preliminary defer founded on the alleged insufficiency of the petitioner's title sue at the date of the action, allows to the petitioner a pr habili modo, of the statements contained in the first artich his revised condescendence, to the effect that, "at the dat the institution of the action, the petitioner was the true prietor of said dwelling-house, garden, and pertinents, has previously bought and paid therefor," and that petitioner t possession of these premises at Whitsunday last; and to respondent a conjunct probation; grants diligence against nesses and havers.

NOTE. The Steward-Substitute is of opinion that the purchase and payment of the price of the property petitioner, followed by possession at the date of the pet and the production of a valid written title before the r was closed, remove all technical objections to the petitio title to sue.

This Interlocutor was appealed, and after a reclai petition and answers, the Sheriff pronounced the fo ing judgment:

The Sheriff having considered the Interlocutor a from, and the defender's reclaiming petition, with the a Gordon being, prior to Whitsunday, 1861, proprietor and the record, productions and process: Finds that Mr. tain subjects, consisting of two adjoining dwelling-hou back-gardens attached to them, on the east side of the way leading from Kirkcudbright to the Millburn, sold of the subjects, being the northmost of the two hou back-garden, to the pursuer, John Wilson, and the oth of the subjects, being the southmost house and back to the defender, John Sproat, with entry to each of th chasers at Whitsunday, 1861: Finds that there existe sage leading from the road in front of the said honse ground or gardens at the back thereof, and which is beneath the defender's house, and immediately adjon the southmost gable of the pursuer's house, and which has been long used for freeish and entry betwixt the sa gardens and the road or street in front of the houses that although Mr Gordon, the seller, gave entry to the said parties' purchasers at Whitsunday last, 1861 not subscribe or deliver the disposition, produced b respectively in this process, until 27th August thereaft while the disposition in favour of the defender convey Mr Gordon's subjects "only to the extent of the thereby, of said subjects, upon which a dwelling built, and bounded now as follows, viz., by the other said subjects, upon which there is a dwelling-house, lat chased from me by John Wilson (the pursuer) on the etc., and the disposition to the pursuer conveys the "to the extent of the half, or thereby, of said subjec which a dwelling-house is built, and bounded now viz., by the house and yard, being the other half jects, conveyed by me of this date to John Sproat said passage leading to the back premises, nor is e der) on the south," neither of the dispositions menti property in it, nor exclusive right to use it, expressly e to either of the purchasers from Mr Gordon: Finds th the date on which the pursuer and defender rep obtained the said dispositions in their favour, the commenced the operations on or near the said passi if completed, would have the effect of preventing the from using the same as an access to his back-yard: Fi this novum opus by the defender led to the present interdict, raised on the 20th August, 1861, seven day the date on which the pursuer and defender obtains formal dispositions above-mentioned: Finds that in tion for interdict, and in the subsequent condescende revised condescendence, the pursuer, besides alleging was proprietor, also averred that he was occupier of and garden ground behind the same, previously purch him from Mr Gordon, having been in possession since Whitsunday, 1861: Finds that, though the expressly denied in Article I. of his revised defences pursuer was proprietor at the date of the institution action, he did not deny that the pursuer was then

and in the possession alleged by him: Finds that the defender has not recorded any relevant averment to the effect that the pursuer was then an unlawful possessor or occupier of the hase and back-garden, without the consent or authority of Mr Gordon, his author: Finds that the admitted possession had by the pursuer, gave him a sufficient title and interest to interdict against the defender making any encroachment the said passage whereby the pursuer, as well as the defenLad access to the back premises possessed by them respecely: Finds it averred by the pursuer that the "said passage been used de facto by the tenants of said two dwelling s, which have been let separately up to the term of Winday last, since they were built, from time immemorial, est for the last seven years, without which they could not eficially be occupied; and the said passage, or at least the by the petitioner as right-of-way by foot and barrow Es garden behind his house, is a part and pertinent Finds that though the defender has denied this rode, he does so under a reference to his own "Statement

#

Facts:" and in his statement, though he asserts that the belongs exclusively to him, he proceeds to aver and that it is true, however, that the said passage has for ral years been used by the tenant in the house now belong the petitioner, as an access to the garden behind the ete: Finds it not averred by the defender that any our tenant or possessor of the house now belonging to the Her (pursuer) was ever interrupted in the use of said age for freeish and entry to the back premises, or was refused the use thereof as a passage common to the uta of both houses and back-gardens: and Finds that the der has not instructed, nor condescended on any written to the said passage, as belonging exclusively to him: Finds in the state of facts exhibited by the record, and the averand admissions therein, and productions, the pursuer is possessory process entitled to interdict as craved, to et of preventing the defender from altering and inverte possession and use of the passage in question, unless he shall establish in a competent process of declara alleged right, and that it is not necessary for the purtd further proof on the question of title to sue, in of the Interlocutor of 4th December; therefore, recalls Intautor as unnecessary, and repels the defences, and in terms of the prayer of the petition for interdict: the defender liable in the expenses of process, and to the auditor to tax the account, and decerns. BRATCH.

5TH FEBRUARY, 1863.

Alt. JENKINS,

ERIFF COURT, DUNFERMLINE. (MR SHERIFF SHIREFF.)

G's SEQUESTRATION-DAVID ROBERTSON AND DAVID WATT competing.

tration-Objections to Trustee-Bills of Exchange Unission of payee's name-Conjunct and confident.

3. Oath by James Birrell, cow-feeder, Dunfermline claiming to be ranked and vote for the sum of £20.

The respective claims of these three claimants are founded upon alleged bills for the said respective suns, but the documents produced by each of them respectively, are not bills of exchange, in respect that they do not specify to whom the sums contained in the same are payable. Neither do any of the said alleged bills instruct any obligation by the bankrupt to pay the said several sums to the claimants respectively, or any acknowledg ment by the bankrupt of his being indebted to the claimants in said sums.

4. Oath by David Norrie, ship-owner, Leith, claiming to be ranked and vote for the sum of £59.

The claimant's ground of debt is a promissory note, dated 2d January, 1863, payable one day after date, and therefore bears to have been granted since the bankrupt was incarcerated, as set forth in his petition for sequestration, and since he became notour bankrupt, and the claimant being married to a sister of the bankrupt's wife, he is, therefore, conjunct and confident with the bankrupt, and no value having been given for the said promissory note by the claimant to the bankrupt, the said claim ought to be rejected.

The three bills objected to were in the following terms:

[blocks in formation]

The Sheriff-Substitute having heard the parties' agents on the objections, pronounced the following Interlocutor:

The Sheriff-Substitute having heard parties' procurators on the objections proponed for David Watt, farmer, Pitdinnie, to the votes of David Robertson, John M'Laren, James Birrell, and David Norrie, claiming to be ranked and to vote as creditors of the said Andrew Craig at the meeting for election of trustee on said sequestrated estate, and thereafter having considered the minute of the meeting of the creditors of the said Andrew Craig, held for the purpose of electing a trustee and commissioners on the sequestrated estate of the bankrupt Andrew Craig, of date the 20th day of January current, and resumed consideration of said objections-1st. Sustains the objections to the votes of David Robertson, John M'Laren, and James Birrell, on the ground that the documents of debt objected to, and respectively founded on by the said claimants, though purporting to be bills of exchange, are not in law such bills, in respect that they do not specify to whom the sums contained in the said several bills are payable; 2. Sustains the

the meeting of creditors of Andrew Craig, cattle in Dunfermline, on the 20th January, 1863, four rs, with claims amounting in all to £229, voted the appointment of Mr David Robertson, Dunferm-in trustee; and two, with claims amounting to about Ft Mr David Watt, farmer, Pitdinnie. Each of Parties objected to the claims and votes of the other, the following note of objections was lodged by Mr against the votes in favour of his opponent:Oath by the said David Robertson, claiming to be and vote for the sum of £120.

Oath by John M'Laren, farmer, Backmuir, claimle ranked and vote for the sum of £30,

objection to the vote of David Norrie, on the ground that the document of debt on which it is founded has been granted between conjunct and confident persons, and also admittedly granted by the bankrupt after notour bankruptcy, and while prison for debt: Further, finds that the majority of legal votes at the aforesaid meeting is in favour of the objector, the said David Watt, as trustee on the sequestrated estate of the said bankrupt Andrew Craig: Also, finds that William Bonnar Darling, writer in Dunfermline, James Birrell, cow-feeder there, and John M'Laren, Backmuir of Pitfirrane, are duly elected commissioners on the said estate, and decerns: Finds the said David Robertson, competing for the office of trustee on said estate with the successful candidate, David Watt, liable to the latter in the expenses of the discussion of the pounds sterling, and decerns against the said David Robertson objections aforesaid, modifies the same to the sum of two

for said sum,

NOTE. It is a singular coincidence that three of the bills objected to-though of different dates-contain, ex facie, the very same defect with respect to the want of the name of the payee, and in precisely the same inept and unmeaning words, namely, "Pay to, or my order." There is no blank left in which to fill in a payee's name, or even that of the drawer by the insertion of the pronoun me. The defects founded on, then, could not be cured except by erasure or superinduction of the bills in essentialibus, which would be utterly incompetent on the part of the holders. Hence it is thought that they are bad, and not sufficient documents of debt justifying the votes of the creditors who claim and vote upon them in the important matter of the election of trustee on the bankrupt's

sequestrated estate.

[blocks in formation]

5. No proper deduction is given or allowed for bills not yet due.

6. The promissory note, under date December 4, a due 4th February, 1863, is not produced.

7. The bankrupts having recently become insolvent offered a composition of ten shillings in the pound, which was accepted, and for payment of which inter alia the promissory notes credited were granted. The claimant cannot deduct the composition bills, and rank for th balance of their original debts.

8. One of the items near the close of the account ap to the affidavit is a composition promissory note but it is incompetent to rank and vote for the amount the original debt, and also over and above, as has bee done, to rank and vote for one or any of the compositio bills.

Mr Bell, in his Principles, section 324, lays it down that
uncertainty as to the payee is fatal to the bill, and cites as
authority the English case of Blankenhagan v. Blundel, 2
Barn & Ald., 417. Mr Thomson, also, in his treatise on bills,
says, "No bill or note is complete unless the payee be
pointed out, either by name or by description, as by these words,
'Pay to the bearer;"" and he cites also the case of Blanken-
hagan, cited by Mr Bell. Then Mr Thomson goes on in the
same paragraph to say,-"A learned French author suggests
that if a bill, though it does not specify the payee, mentions
value received of a particular person, that person should be
presumed to be the payee. The present law of France, how
ever, appears to be different; and it is probably better that
parties should suffer for their negligence in granting or taking
such an imperfect document, than that a conjectural construc-pended
tion of it should be hazarded." Concurring, as the Sheriff-
Substitute does, in the opinion of Mr Thomson, he has felt
constrained to sustain the objections proponed to the bills
claimed upon by Robertson, M'Laren, and Birrell, to the
effect merely, hoc statu, however, that the votes upon them
must be disallowed. The claims of the parties, if well-founded
-including that of Norrie-though rejected on a different
ground from that of the other claimants, can be easily proved,
aliunde, when the scheme of ranking in this sequestration
falls to be made up. No accounts, or other grounds or claims
of debt, except the bills themselves, were produced or sub-
mitted for consideration at the hearing of parties on the ob-
jections. True, there were the customary oaths of verity to
the bills; but an oath of verity is not probation, and cannot
make a bad bill good. It is a mistake to suppose that docu-
ments imperfect or incomplete as legal and valid vouchers of
debt can pass in the case of voting for the election of a trus-
tee, any more than they can do so in the case of ranking
See the opinion of the late Lord-Justice Clerk (John Hope)
in the case of Paterson v. Lumsden and Others, 2d June,
1847; Jurist, Vol. xix., p. 504.

For Mr Watt-BEVERIDGE & DARLING.
For Mr Robertson—

[blocks in formation]

GOULD & Co.'s SEQUESTRATION-ARCHD. POLLOK AND
GEO. M'FARLANE AND JOHN E. WATSON competing.
Minutes of meeting if ex facie inaccurate, may be cor-
rected by parole evidence.

Personal objections sustained. —A competitor for the
office of Trustee, who has an apparent majority of votes
and lodges no note of objections, is not thereby excluded
from the competition, although he cannot object to his
opponent's votes. Oaths insufficiently vouched, rejected.

THE following objections were stated by Pollok to the
votes for the competitors M'Farlane and Watson:-
I.-Affidavit by James Wilson.

9. One of the items of the account annexed to the oat bears to be for "goods per invoice;" no invoice is pro duced.

10. Upon receipt of the composition bills or promisso notes the original bills were cancelled and delivered to George M'Farlane, accountant, acting for the ban rupts, or others acting for them. This discharged t bankrupts of the original bills.

11. The original bills having been allowed to rema in the hands of the said George M'Farlane, (by who the affidavit and claim was prepared,) or others for t bankrupts or under their control, it is incompetent no to produce said original bills or promissory notes, to t effect of reviving them and entitling them to be rank for in full. All those original bills were in the hands the bankrupts, or of the said George M'Farlane, or othe for the bankrupts, at the time of the sequestration, evidence of the original debts being discharged.

12. The oath and affidavit, and the relative accou annexed to it, are inconsistent with each other, in respe the affidavit states that no security and no other obligan are held for the debt, a statement which the account a the facts negative and disprove.

II.-Affidavit by Alexander Whitelaw.

13. This vote is bad, in respect the previous objection numbers 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 12, which are all here be as repeated, and are founded on and referred to brevita causa.

III.-Affidavit by Woolat, Gard & Co.

14. This vote is bad, in respect of the previous obje tions, numbers 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 12, which all here held as repeated, and are founded on and

ferred to brevitatis causa.

IV.-Affidavit by Phillpot, Cooper & Co.

15. This vote is bad, in respect of the previous obj tions, numbers 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 12, which

all here held as repeated, and are founded on and are here referred to brevitatis causa.

V-Affidavit by Charles Tennant & Co.

16. This vote is bad, in respect of the previous objecfons, numbers 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 12, which are all here held as repeated, and are founded on and referred to brevitatis causa.

Parties' procurators having been heard on these objections, the Sheriff pronounced the following Interlocutor:

Having considered the notes of objections for Archibald Pollok, accountant in Glasgow, and for George M'Farlane, accountant there, no note of objections having been lodged for John E. Watson, accountant, Glasgow, proposed and voted for as trustee in succession to, and failing the said

17. Four items are charged as "goods per invoice;" George M'Farlane, competitors for the office of trustee these invoices are not produced.

VI-Affidavit by Tetley Brothers.

18. This vote is bad, in respect of the objections, numdas 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 12, which are all here held peated, and are founded on and are here referred to tis causa.

IL-Affidavit by Conroy, Philps & Heywood.

12. This vote is bad, in respect of the previous objecnumbers 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, which all here held as repeated, and are here referred to

latis causa.

-Affidavit by C. J. Small & Co.

This vote is bad, in respect that no detail is given credit for "goods returned."

Interest is charged on the bill for £99 7s. It is aid at what rate, nor from what date, nor up to date, said interest is calculated.

The previous objections, numbers 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10,
and 12, are all here held as repeated, and are founded
and are all referred to brevitatis causa.
following objections were stated by M'Farlane
Watson to the votes for Pollok:-

Claim and affidavit for James Beckett, clothier,
Street, Glasgow; No. 13/3 of process.

ection is taken to the sum of £100, claimed third
state appended to this affidavit, in respect
No value was given for the £100 which is here
ed to be paid, and the document, ex facie, bears
the said sun of £100 was to have been paid by the
upt by way of preference over his other creditors
aid James Beckett, under a private arrangement
month of April last, whereby he, the said James
along with the other creditors, agreed to and
accept of a composition of 10s in the pound on the
then due them.

The document in question is of the nature of er promissory note, and is null and void, being ped.

Or else it is of the nature of a bond, and must pedere it bear any faith in judgment. Claim and affidavit for J. C. M'Gregor & Co., nkers, Greenock; No. 15/3 of process. ection is taken to the sums of £299 158 11d, and 11d, contained in two bills dated 31st January February, at two months each respectively, et these bills, at the date of the affidavit, were property of the said J. C. M'Gregor & Co., but to the City of Glasgow Banking Co., from they were obtained for the purpose of making the in question, the said Bank being the holder of position bills applicable to the said two original In any event the said J. C. M'Gregor & Co. are creditors in these sums, the right to the debt ted in the said City of Glasgow Bank, by whom davit ought to have been made.

on the sequestrated estates of James Gould & Company, tea merchants and general grocers, Pitt Street, Glasgow, and of James Gould, tea merchant and general grocer there, the sole partner of said firm, as such partner and as an individual, and having heard parties at various diets: Finds and declares, for the reasons stated in the annexed note, the said Archibald Pollok to have been duly elected trustee on said sequestrated estate: Finds the unsuccessful competitors, M'Farlane and Watson, liable, jointly and severally, in expenses, reserving their relief inter se; allows an account of said expenses to be given in, and remits the same to the auditor to tax and report, and decerns.

NOTE. At the meeting for the election of trustee, the votes for Mr M'Farlane, whom failing, Mr Watson, amounted in value to £1,191 8s 10d, and the votes for Mr Pollok to £818 14s 6d, giving the former an apparent majority of £372 148 4d. In the note of objections for Pollok, certain objections were stated to the validity and legality of the voting for M'Farlane and Watson, founded on the inaccurate manner in which the voting is recorded in the minutes. But upon the Sheriff stating that his view was that if there had been no ex facie inaccuracy or error of what took place at the meeting, and that parole proof to in the minutes, they fell to be regarded as the proper evidence contradict them would be inadmissible; but that if the minutes ex facie of themselves indicated an error, the fact of the alleged error might be proved parole, as was held by Lord Fullerton in the Bill Chamber, in M'Cluskey's sequestration, May, 1840; and as the Sheriff further stated that he considered the minutes here to indicate an ex facie error, and that he would allow a proof pro ut de jure with the view of clearing it up, parties lodged the joint minute, No. 20, wherein Mr Pollok departed from his objections in, as far as founded on the terms of the minutes. Mr Pollok, however, still insisted in the personal objections stated by him to the eligibility of the competitor M Farlane; and, on the whole, although the Sheriff not strong enough to render M'Farlane ineligible, he came was at first inclined to hold that the personal objections were latterly to think that they were. They resolved into thisthat Mr M'Farlane had not only acted professionally for the bankrupt during his insolvency, but had consented to put himself in the position of a trustee or negotiorum gestor for the bankrupt and his creditors, and had in that capacity entered into transactions, and had intromissions with the bankrupt estate, in regard to which it might be the duty of the trustee in the sequestration to insist in a count and reckoning. The minute of the meeting of creditors, held on 15th April, 1862, being some months prior to the sequestration, bears that Mr Gould, the bankrupt, "was instructed to carry on his business under the guidance of the Committee, but to a limited extent, and Mr M'Farlane was appointed to receive and pay all monies, and open a bank account in his own name jointly with Mr Gould for behoof of the creditors." This bank account was opened accordingly, and was largely operated upon, as is instructed by the documents recovered under the diligence granted to Pollok. Certain monies of the bankrupt also admittedly came into Mr M'Farlane's hands through other sources, and though this was not to a large extent, he was nevertheless substantially an intromitter with funds which will have to be accounted for to the trustee; and the rule which the Sheriff usually follows in similar cases seems the safe one, that it is inexpedient to give the office of trustee to one so situated. The competitor Watson did not lodge any note of objections, but this, under the decision in the case of Miller, March 18, 1858, did not exclude him from the competition, he having an apparent majority of votes, although it rendered it incompetent for him to state objections to the votes of his opponent. A scrutiny thus became necessary, and it was gone into at the instance of all the three competitors, in case

the personal ineligibility of M'Farlane might not be sustained. From the votes for him and Watson the following deductions

« ForrigeFortsett »