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 >>
Cunningham v Denniston. [1665] Mor 2560 (00 January 1665)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1665/Mor0602560-013.html Cite as:
[1665] Mor 2560
Subject_1 COMPENSATION - RETENTION. Subject_2 SECT. II.
What understood to be a Liquid Claim.
Cunningham v. Denniston
1665.
January. Case No. No 13.
Compensation on a claim of relief, was rejected.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
James Cunningham charges Henry Denniston for payment of a certain sum due to him by bond, who suspends upon this reason, That the said James being curator to the children of the deceased William Wilson, the suspender stands cautioner for him in the act of curatory; and true it is, that by the charger's mal-administration the suspender is under hazard, the children haying intented an action, at least being ready to intent an action against him, for removing him as suspect; and therefore the suspender ought to have retention.—It was answered, That the suspender is not distressed; and there is no such action intented, neither is there any reason for it; and the money charged for, was borrowed after the suspender became cautioner, and bound himself to repay it faithfully.
The Lords found the letters orderly proceeded, reserving to the suspender action as accords in the law against the charger, for finding new caution, or for removing him as suspect.
