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 petitioners answered —That the concurring creditor had made oath, in terms of the statute, to the verity of his debt; and that the Court was positively directed by the bankrupt act to award sequestration upon an application made to them for that purpose, with the concurrence of a creditor to the requisite amount, although they might afterwards, upon cause shewn, recall it. The objections made to the concurring creditor are denied, and must be proved; and, therefore, cannot be discussed in this summary manner.
The Court granted the sequestration, holding it incompetent to stop it upon allegations which could not be instantly verified. But it was stated that it would be competent for the respondents to renew all the objections now pleaded in a petition for recall of the sequestration.
Act. Sol. Gen. (Hope) W. Boswell. Alt. Dean of Fac. (Moncrieff) Cowan. John M'Andrew and Gairdner and Robertson, 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.