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!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Graham v Bruce. [1665] Mor 792 (7 February 1665) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1665/Mor0200792-129.html Cite as: [1665] Mor 792 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
[1665] Mor 792
Subject_1 ARRESTMENT.
Subject_2 Loosing Arrestment.
Date: Graham
v.
Bruce
7 February 1665
Case No.No 129.
Found, that loosing arrestment did not liberate the debtor, in whose hands the sum was arrested, while it remained unuplifted by the looser.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In an action pursued at the instance of David Graham taylor, against George Bruce and Doctor Martine, to make arrested money furthcoming; it was found, That the loosing of the arrestment did not liberate the debtor in whose hands the samen is arrested, in regard it was still resting by him, un-uplifted by the looser.
Stair reports the case thus. David Graham, upon the sight of a bond unregistrate, of George Bruce's, obtained arrestment; and therewith arrested a sum in Doctor Martine's hand, which was loosed, and after the loosing, assignation was made by George Bruce to his sister.
In which case, the Lords found, That the arrestment being upon the bond, before registration, might be loosed; and, notwithstanding of the loosing, seeing it was not now paid by the debtor, they ordained it to be made furthcoming to the arrester, and preferred him to the assignee; albeit, it was alleged, That the tenor of the arrestment was but till caution was found; which being found, albeit the debtor could not oppose to make it furthcoming, yet an assignee, after loosing the arrestment, may let.
The Lords considered, that the caution found, in loosing arrestments, is overlie and insufficient; and so would not insecure creditors, doing diligence by arrestment. (See Legal Diligence.)
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting