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 pursuer raised a process of cessio bonorum before the Sheriff of Lanarkshire, under stat. 6 and 7 Will. IV. c. 56. The Sheriff-depute found ‘the pursuer not entitled to the benefit of cessio till, in addition to the imprisonment already suffered, he shall have undergone four months' additional imprisonment from this date,’ and refused ‘the cessio hoc statu, and until the expiration of that period.’
Eder reclaimed to this Court, pleading that the Sheriff had exceeded his powers in ordering the four months' imprisonment.
Stat. 6 and 9 Will. IV. c. 56. provides, That the Sheriff may either grant decree, or refuse to grant the same in hoc statu, or grant it, subject to a declaration that it shall not be extractable or available as a protection to the debtor, for such time as shall appear proper, or make such other orders as may be necessary for the administration of justice.
Sect. 17. enacts, that if the decree of cessio be refused in hoc statu, either by the Court of Session or the Sheriff, the debtor may, at any time thereafter, without the necessity of raising any new summons, or presenting any new petition, apply to have decree of cessio pronounced in his favour.
Deas contended, that the interlocutor of the Sheriff amounted substantially to the same thing, but in another form, with granting the cessio, and superseding extract for four months.
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.