What Diligence sufficient to found Reduction upon the act 1621.
Sir James Cockburn v. Provost Miln and Others
1686.
February. Case No. No 142.
Denunciation at the market cross of Edinburgh, (where the debtor did not reside,) found not sufficient diligence.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In a competition of the creditors of Grange, it was alleged for Sir James Cockburn, That the common debtor being denounced at his instance, could not prefer and gratify another creditor, who had done no diligence.
Answered, 1mo, The denunciation being only at the market-cross of Edinburgh, where the party did not live, it could only be the Foundation of a caption, and could not affect any part of the debtor's estate, seeing the contempt did not infer rebellion; and so cannot be reputed such a diligence as the act of Parliament requires. 2do, The debtor was not bankrupt by that horning, for he was then in a responsal condition.
The Lords sustained both the answers.
February 1686.—Found, That a denunciation to the horn at the market-cross of Edinburgh, where the party did not live, was not a sufficient diligence to hinder gratification, since his escheat did not fall thereby; and it was not a diligence ordinata to affect the goods, as other hornings are.
