Carruthers v Dickson Company

JurisdictionScotland
JudgeLords Meadow-bank,Newton
Judgment Date12 November 1830
Date12 November 1830
CourtCourt of Session (Inner House - First Division)
Docket NumberNo. 1.
Court of Session
1St Division

Lords Meadow-bank &

Newton.

No. 1.
Carruthers
and
Dickson &c.

Ranking and Sale—Right in Security.

A ranking and sale of the estate of Hardriggs, Longdyke, and others, was raised in 1770; and John Dickson, W. S., was chosen common agent. An interim decree of sale was pronounced in 1792 as to Hardriggs &c., but the roup was adjourned indefinitely as to Longdyke. The common agent withdrew in 1805, and Mr. William Johnstone, S. S. C., acted in his place without any special appointment. In 1806, a petition was presented, in name of the common agent and others, for a renewal of the warrant of sale of Longdyke; to which objections were lodged by James Carruthers, a creditor on the estate, and heir entitled to take it up, if he could set aside the claims of the petitioners. His objections were repelled by an interlocutor against which he lodged an unsuccessful representation. After the usual preliminary procedure, the judicial roup took place in 1811. At the roup, Carruthers protested that the articles of roup were not conform to the deeds by which he had right to the estate, as they implied that he was an heir of entail, whilst in truth he was entitled to take it up in fee-simple; and he reserved liberty to apply to the Court to have the articles rectified. He then purchased the estates as highest bidder; and having lodged a bond, with caution for the price, decree of sale was pronounced in his favour in 1812, which was extracted, and he entered into possession.

A variety of procedure subsequently occurred, including a remit to a Lord Ordinary, and afterwards to an accountant, for the purpose of auditing the common agent's accounts, authorizing a scheme of division, &c. To these measures James Carruthers was a party. They were not brought to a final issue in 1823, when Carruthers, along with his eldest son, brought an action of reduction of the decree of sale of Longdyke pronounced in his favour in 1812. It was directed against John Dickson, W. S.,—the late W. Johnstone, S. S. C.,—and against the others who had petitioned for the renewed warrant of sale in 1806. This action was conjoined with the previous ranking and sale. It did not conclude for reduction of the act and warrant by which Longdyke was ordained to be exposed to sale, nor of the articles of roup, nor of the minute of preference of the purchaser, nor of the recorded bond for the price. Both parties founded on numerous pleas...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • United Dominions Trust (Commercial) Ltd v Ennis
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 20 Febrero 1967
    ...on hire purchase terms The cash price was £1,095. He paid the initial instalment £19 The monthly instalments payable over four years were £24. 9s 1d. The first monthly instalment was as on the 8th January 1960. But just at that time there was a dockers' strike which affected his wage vary a......
  • Re Lyons, Decd. and Another v Lyons
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal
    • 3 Diciembre 1951
    ...annuity. In the circumstances of his "business loss the Appellant became entitled to recover and did recover the whole amount of £429 9s 1d of tax paid as above mentioned; and it was unnecessary to make any calculation of the sums he would, apart from his "business loss, have been entitled ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT