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.
By a trust disposition (8th and 11th Nov. 1825) the respondent, Lord Fife, on the narrative of the embarrassed state of his affairs, and his desire to provide for the payment of his debts, conveyed his whole property, heritable and moveable, and his liferent interest in his entailed estates, in favour of the Earl of Lauderdale, and, failing him by death or resignation, in favour of James Balfour of Whittinghame, and such other person or persons as may hereafter be appointed and chosen, pursuant to the powers hereafter written, as trustees, &c.
Thereafter, a general meeting of the creditors was held, according to advertisement, on the 16th December, for the purpose of appointing a new trustee.
Upon this action inhibition was used against Lord Lauderdale in terms of the above conclusions.
At this meeting the petitioner, Mr Robertson, whom failing, two others, were chosen to be trustees in their order, with power to a committee of creditors to fix an adequate remuneration to the accepting trustee.
Thereafter, petitions were presented both by Lord Lauderdale and by Mr Robertson for a recal of the inhibition. In the petition for Mr Robertson, to which reference was made in that for Lord Lauderdale, it was pleaded —
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.