Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In a sequestration of a debtor's estate, the debtor alleged, That the rents exceeded the interest of the debts; and craved, that part of the estate might be exempted from sequestration for his aliment. All the Creditors consented, and part was accordingly reserved from the sequestration. Afterwards it appearing that there was a considerable deficiency, a question arose between the preferable creditors and those postponed, on whom should fall this deficiency. Pleaded for the postponed, That the reservation being made by the consent of all, should affect all. Answered for the preferable Creditors, That they are secured by their diligence; that they consented for themselves, because the estate was more than sufficient to pay their debts. The Lords found, that the deficiency fell solely on the postponed Creditors, as it was their interest alone to have opposed or consented to the reservation.
