BAILII
British and Irish Legal Information Institute


Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information

[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Scottish Court of Session Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Robert Rutherford v William and Thomas Bells, &c. [1769] Hailes 287 (7 March 1769)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1769/Hailes010287-0126.html
Cite as: [1769] Hailes 287

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

[1769] Hailes 287      

Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR DAVID DALRYMPLE, LORD HAILES.
Subject_2 ADJUDICATION.
Subject_3 An adjudication sustained as a security, notwithstanding a pluris petitio.

Robert Rutherford
v.
William and Thomas Bells, &c

Date: 7 March 1769

Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy

[Faculty Collection, IV. 173; Dictionary, 117.]

Auchinleck. There are three separate accumulations, but the error is only in one. I would restrict as to the heritable bond: every thing else is regular enough.

Pitfour. It is averred that the only intromissions, not allowed in accounting, were after the summons. I doubt as to cutting down all adjudications in totum, on that account.

Gardenston. When a creditor takes a rigorous decreet of adjudication, he must beware and not wilfully demand more than is due. Here there is evidence of a recent payment; and that this payment was after the summons raised, is so much the worse.

Kaimes. The case here is with a debtor, not with competing creditors. Where there is a malicious pluris petitio, the Court may go far in way of punishment. The circumstances of this case show that there was no intention of a wilful pluris petitio. I would, however, take away all accumulations.

President. The interlocutor is rigorous: there was no intention to deceive. The adjudication must subsist as a security for principal sum and annualrents, from the date of the adjudication.

On the 17th March 1769, “the Lords found that the adjudication quarrelled must subsist as a security for principal sum and interest, from the date of the adjudication;” altering Lord Gardenston's interlocutor.

Act. W. Nairne. Alt. J. Swinton, jun.

Diss. Gardenston, Kennet.

The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting     

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010