Oath of the Debtor, if good against his Creditors?
Morton v. Gilchrist
Date: 10 February 1680 Case No. No 306.
Found, that the seller of goods having become bankrupt, his evidence could not be received to prefer one party to another.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
William Ancrum and James Grieve having bought a parcel of iron from Arthur Udney; James Gilchrist arrests the price, and obtains a decreet for making forthcoming, in satisfaction of a debt due by Udney to him, and obtains payment thereupon. Andrew Morton pursues the same persons for payment to him of the price, because the iron belonged to him, and Udney was only his factor, and for proving thereof, hath produced an assignation from Udney to the price, bearing expressly, That it did belong to Morton, and that he sold it as a factor, with a letter to the same purpose. It was alleged for Ancrum and Grieve, absolvitor, because they had made payment bona fide to Gilchrist, before this pursuit; but seeing Gilchrist compeared, the Lords considered the competition between him and Morton. It was alleged for Gilchrist, That Udney's acknowledging the property to belong to Morton, cannot be respected, because Udney before that time was broken, at least Gilchrist had used diligence against him by horning.
The Lords found the allegeance relevant for Morton, That the property of the iron belonged to him, and that Udney was only his factor, and found the same proved by Udney's acknowledgement in his assignation or letter, unless he was bankrupt, or incapacitated by diligence before the same, in which case they found the property of the iron to belong to Morton probable praut de jure.
