Brown v Paterson
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Ld. Mackenzie |
| Judgment Date | 12 May 1824 |
| Court | Court of Session (Inner House - First Division) |
| Docket Number | No. 6. |
| Date | 12 May 1824 |
Ld. Mackenzie
Bankruptcy—competition—provisions To Children.—
The late Mr Cochran executed an entail of certain lands in favour of his son, Archibald Cochran junior; and, of the same date, a general disposition and settlement of all his other property, heritable and moveable, also in favour of his son, under burden of certain legacies ; and, in particular, of a provision of L. 1500 to his daughter Mrs Brown, who had previously discharged all claims of legitim, in consideration of a sum which had been advanced to her by Cochran senior at her marriage. By this deed of settlement, Cochran senior declared, ‘that my said son, by accepting hereof, or of my entailed estates, in terms of the settlements thereof, and the heirs succeeding to him therein, stand pledged and engaged, as aforesaid, to satisfy and procure discharges and extinctions of every debt and obligation, provisions, and bequest of every description, created or contracted by, or incumbent on me.’ Cochran junior was afterwards sequestrated ; and his estates, including his liferent-interest in the entailed properties, were conveyed to Paterson, the trustee, Mrs Brown and her husband claimed to be ranked for her provision on the rents of the entailed estates, in preference to the real and personal creditors of Archibald Cochran junior, on the ground that she was a creditor of Cochran senior the entailer.1 The trustee rejected this claim to a preference,
and found ‘that the claimants are only entitled to be ranked pari passu with the other personal creditors of the bankrupt, on the rents in question.’ Mrs Brown having presented a petition against this judgment, the Court remitted it to the Lord Ordinary ; and thereafter, on his report, they found ‘that, hoc statu, Mrs Brown and her husband have no claim to be ranked preferably on the funds actually now in medio.’1
A father entailed his estate to his son, on the condition; inter alia, that he should pay all debts and provisions due by him, and at the same time granted a mortis causa provision to his daughter ; found, on the bankruptcy of the son, that the daughter was not, as a creditor of the father, preferable to the creditors of the son.
1 The grounds of her claim, as stated to the Court, were—’ 1st, That the provisions created by the settlements are made a debt against the heirs of entail, as well as against Archibald Cochran, as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Momcilovic v The Queen
...collide, their need to be ‘balanced’ against each other and the importance of their co-existence with each other are also recognised in s 7( 3), s 5 and the third point of the Preamble. The Attorney-General's speech perceives the human right against which something else is being tested — a ......
-
British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (Buav) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...regulated procedure to specified animals and at a specified place. The purposes for which a project licence can be granted are set out in s5( 3). S5(4) is important: in determining whether and on what terms to grant a project licence, the Secretary of State "shall weigh the likely adverse e......
-
Re Lambie
...HCA 52. 109 60 Vict No 1, s 5(1). 110Bowman v Hood (1899) 9 QLJ 272 at 278. See, later, Clydesdale v Hughes (1934) 36 WALR 73. 111 60 Vict No 3, s 5. 112 Hatsell, Precedents of Proceedings in the House of Commons, 2nd ed (reprint) (1785), vol 1 at 113 Falconer and Fitzherbert, Cases of Cont......