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 >>
Ker of Moriston v Pringle, Ormiston, &c. Creditors of Home of Eccles. [1703] 4 Brn 548 (11 February 1703)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1703/Brn040548-0046.html
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR JOHN LAUDER OF FOUNTAINHALL. Subject_2 I sat in the Outer-House this week.
Ker of Moriston v. Pringle, Ormiston, &c Creditors of Home of Eccles.
Date: 11 February 1703
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In a competition between Ker of Moriston, and Pringle, Charles Ormiston, and other Creditors to Home of Eccles, Moriston objected against Pringle's adjudication, that it was null and informal, because he being constituted assignee to most of the debts for which it was led, he had raised his charge to enter heir against Eccles before he had got these assignations in his person, and so the charge was filius ante patrem.
Answered, 1mo. He had a debt due to himself, which was sufficient to support the charge, that debt being antecedent thereto; 2do. Before the charge to enter heir was executed, he had all these assignations in his person; which was sufficient, the giving the charge being the true application of the diligence;
Replied,—They did not quarrel the adjudication as to his own debt, but only quoad those conveyed to him; 2do. The charge being the warrant by which he was charged to enter heir, and these assignations being posterior to the date of the charge, they were unwarrantable and destitute of a warrant; and so the Lords found, 15th November 1666, Abercrombie, marked both by Stair and Dirleton; though Dirleton subjoins another between Kennedy and Hamilton to the same purpose, yet the first speaks only of an assignation taken after the summons was executed.
The Lords divided on the question, five against five, and the President for the time did cast the balance by finding the adjudication not null, though the charge preceded the assignations, seeing the execution on the charge was posterior; and so repelled the objection.
