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, Robertson, was a manufacturer near Dundee, and having become insolvent, the petitioner, M'Gavin, who was a creditor by a bill to the amount required by the statute, proceeded to execute diligence against him by horning and caption, (1st Nov. 1833,) and an execution of search was returned against him, (1st Jan. 1834) .
A second search, under the petitioner's caption, was made for the respondent, and an execution returned 18th July following. This search was followed by a petition for sequestration, (9th Aug.) to which it was
The Lord President concurred, though the case was attended with some difficulty. But if a different interpretation were placed upon the statute, it would be in the power of any creditor, with the collusion of the debtor, to render sequestration at the instance of the other creditors incompetent, by using diligence against him, followed by an execution of which third parties might know nothing, and then, after the period of four months, to object, that by the lapse of this period sequestration was thereafter rendered incompetent.
Lord Corehouse, Ordinary. Act. Dean of Fac. (Hope.) W. Miller, Agent. Alt. Rutherfurd, Ivory. Geo. M'Callum, W.S. Agent. D. Clerk.
The respondent had, previous to this, been imprisoned on letters of caption at the instance of another creditor, and a previous execution of search had also been returned against him upon the diligence of a third creditor, but these facts were not material to the present question.
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.