Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
The respondent left the argument as to the competency on the ground on which it had been placed in the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor; but, on the merits, pleaded —That, having been employed by the former trustee and creditors, he was entitled to maintain his hypothec against them, not only to the effect of obtaining for his debt a preference over the bankrupt estate, but until the creditors (his employers) should pay or find security personally for the payment of his account.
The Court were unanimously of opinion that a summary application was competent; and, on the merits, they granted the prayer of the petition, as it appeared that, amongst the papers to be delivered up, were the title-deeds of heritable property of considerable value, and a bank receipt for £800 due to the bankrupt estate. The respondent, therefore, ran no risk of not recovering all that he should ultimately be found entitled to under the reservation offered by the trustee.
Lord Ordinary, Medwyn. Act. James Moncreiff et Miller. Alt. Jameson et G. Napier. J. T. Murray, W. S. and G. and W. Napier, W. S. Agents. F. Clerk.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.