BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
You are here:BAILII >>
Databases >>
Scottish Court of Session Decisions >>
Hume of Goodscroft v Aikman's Creditor. [1623] Mor 773 (20 December 1623)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1623/Mor0200773-099.html Cite as:
[1623] Mor 773
Subject_1 ARRESTMENT. Subject_2 Nature and Effect of Arrestment.
Hume of Goodscroft v. Aikman's Creditor
Date: 20 December 1623 Case No. No 99.
An arrestment of a sum contained in an heritable bond, supposed to have the effect of stopping the current of annualrent; so that the debtor could not be liable for it, either to the creditor or the arrestee: not finally decided.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In an action of suspension, raised at the instance of Mr David Hume of Goods-croft, against James Aikman's Creditor, which creditor had arrested a sum of money owing by the said Mr David, to the said James Aikman, and was decerned to be made furthcoming for satisfying of a debt owing by the said James, to the said creditor:——The Lords found, albeit the bond containing the debt owing by Mr David, to the said James, was an heritable bond, and that he was thereby obliged to pay yearly annual, ay and white the re-payment, yet that the said Mr David was not holden to pay annualrent, from the time that it was arrested in his hand, by the said James Aikman's creditor, seeing the arrestrment was an probable cause to him, wherefore he could not be in tuto, if he had paid the same to his principal creditor, viz. Airman; neither could he pay the same to the arrester, without a sentence, and so his retention of the sum being neeessary to him for his own surety, excused him from annual paying, since the arrestment; and this was found, albeit it was alleged, That he ought either to have paid the principal sum, or consigned the same; or else he could not be freed of the annualrent, being subject thereto by his bond. This cause was ordained thereafter to be further heard, and this interlocutor was stayed.—Here it may be questioned, if sums debtful by heritable bonds be arrestable, which has not been here disputed; for answer whereto, see K. Charles' Parliament, v. 2. p. 250.
