(1832) 6 W&S 214
CASES DECIDED IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS, ON APPEAL FROM THE COURTS OF SCOTLAND, 1832.
Subject_Appeal — Process — (competent and omitted.) —
Held incompetent to have an appeal, previously disposed of, reheard, on the ground that an interlocutor in the cause had been omitted to be appealed from, and had not been allowed to be considered at the previous hearing.
Can a sequestration issue at the instance of some of the partners of a bank against one of their partners, on a debt due by him individually to the company?
The facts of this case will be found in 5 Wilson and Shaw, 9th December 1830.
House of Lords.
The appellant afterwards petitioned the House of Lords, setting forth, inter alia, That the petitioner, in March 1829, presented his petition of appeal to their Lordships against the interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary on the Bills of the 20th July 1827, in which his Lordship, having considered the petition, with the writs produced, granted warrant for citing the petitioner to appear, within ten days after citation, to show cause why sequestration should not be awarded against him; and the interlocutor of the First Division of the Court of Session, of the 11th December 1828, whereby their Lordships, before further procedure, appointed the petitioners (Ker and Johnston) to give in a minute, stating the grounds upon which they aver that the
The petition was referred to the appeal committee, and thereafter the competency of the application was directed to be argued, and was argued at the bar. The
The House of Lords ordered and adjudged, “That the prayer of the petition be, and hereby is refused.”
Solicitors: Gordon— Moncrieff and Webster,—Solicitors.