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 >> Faichney v John Campbell. [1752] 1 Elchies 41 (12 December 1752) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1752/Elchies010041-028.html Cite as: [1752] 1 Elchies 41 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
[1752] 1 Elchies 41
Subject_1 ARRESTMENT.
Faichney
v.
John Campbell
1752 ,Dec. 12 .
Case No.No. 28.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Austin gave a promissory-note to David Graham, both then in London, in 1744, for L.50, which he indorsed to Pringle, merchant in London, and the indorsation was blank, and Faichney purchased it from Pringle without filling up the indorsation. Austin had conveyed his lands and personal estates in Scotland to certain friends, trustees, to be applied for payment of his debts, and went abroad. Campbell, as creditor to Graham, arrested in the hands of these trustees, and in the forthcoming, called both them and Austin, who on oath acknowledged his being debtor by a promissory-note granted in England, and knew not in whose hands it then was, and thereon Campbell got a decreet of forthcoming against Austin. Austin raised multiplepoinding, wherein Faichney, the indorsee, compeared;—and Shewalton preferred Campbell;—and the case being brought before us, I thought Faichney had the only right to the note, and that the decreet of forthcoming was inept; that the note behoved to be adjudged by the English statute, and the indorsee was preferable to all arrestments prior or posterior; and for any thing that appeared, this indorsation was before the arrestment; that the arrestment in the trustees hands, who were not debtors to Graham, was inept; and the forthcoming against Austin, without an arrestment, was also null. This was argued in the Court an hour, and they were of various opinions on both points, but at last, on the question, the objection to the arrestment was sustained.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting