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.
These proceedings at the instance of the defenders were challenged in this reduction by Tulloch, on the grounds, inter alia, that the poinding under the Sheriff's warrant was a completed diligence to the effect of excluding the baron-bailie's jurisdiction; and that the poinding which issued from the latter judge was in itself null and ineffectual, because in disconformity to the regulation of the bankrupt act respecting poindings.
Lord Cringletie was of opinion, that the objection did not lie to the decree of the bailie, which only interdicted the pursuer from selling what was hypothecated to the defenders, but to the proceeding of the officer of the bailie-court in giving effect to that decree, and the relative warrants of poinding and sale, in preference to the pursuer's diligence.
The Court altered the interlocutor so far as it sustained the defences, reserving all questions of preference and expenses.
Lord Moncreiff, Ordinary. For the Pursuer, Deas. Brown & Miller, W.S. Agents. For the Defenders, Rutherfurd, Geo. Dundas. Dundas & Wilson, 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.