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 defenders maintained that there was no legal evidence of the debt of L.605, on which the composition was claimed, having been due to William Newall; and the Sheriff sustained this defence, and dismissed the action.
Barbour and Mitchell brought the interlocutor of the Sheriff under review by advocation; and pleaded —That William Newall's claim of L.605 on Robert Newall's estate was sufficiently instructed—1 st , By his concurrence with the bankrupt, as a creditor to that a-mount in the petition for sequestration; since, unless the amount of his claim were admitted, the sequestration, and all the proceedings following upon it, would be null, as having taken place without the concurrence requisite for awarding sequestration.
dly , By the trustee's certificate, that this claim was one of those which had been proved under the sequestration; Bell's Com. vol. ii. p. 498, 4th edit.; Brown and others v. Campbell and Company, 11th Feb. 1809; Small and Barnie v. Shaw, 20th Nov. 1815 (not reported); Smith v. Wilson, 14th Dec. 1824, Shaw and Dunlop ; Gordon v. Glen, 19th Jan. 1828, ib .
Besides, the defenders were excluded, personali exceptione , from resisting payment of the composition on this claim, in respect that they held funds of Robert Newall, the bankrupt, more than sufficient to pay the composition on this and all his other debts.
It was answered —1 st , That there was no legal evidence of the debt having ever existed; Bell's Com . vol. ii. p. 498, 4th edit.
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.